Ohio EPA Five-Year Surface Water Monitoring Strategy: 2000 ... · of water bodies) to support...

MAS/1999-7-2 Five Year Monitoring Strategy: 2000-2004 [DRAFT] June 30, 1999

Ohio EPA Five-Year Surface Water Monitoring Strategy:2000 - 2004

Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-7-2

Draft for Review

June 30, 1999

Division of Surface WaterLazarus Government Center

211 S. Front StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Robert A. Taft, GovernorChristopher Jones, Director


FOREWORD

Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring & AssessmentOhio EPA routinely conducts biological and water quality surveys, or “biosurveys”,on a systematic basis statewide. A biosurvey is an interdisciplinary monitoringeffort coordinated on a waterbody specific or watershed scale. Such efforts mayinvolve a relatively simple setting focusing on one or two small streams, one or twoprincipal stressors, and a handful of sampling sites or a much more complex effortincluding entire drainage basins, multiple and overlapping stressors, and tens ofsites. Each year Ohio EPA conducts biosurveys in 10-15 different study areas withan aggregate total of 300-400 sampling sites. Biological, chemical, and physicalmonitoring and assessment techniques are employed in biosurveys in order to meetthree major objectives: 1) determine the extent to which use designations assignedin the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) are either attained or not attained;2) determine if use designations assigned to a given water body are appropriateand attainable; and 3) determine if any changes in key ambient biological,chemical, or physical indicators have taken place over time, particularly before andafter the implementation of point source pollution controls or best managementpractices. The data gathered by a biosurvey is processed, evaluated, andsynthesized in a biological and water quality report. The findings and conclusionsof each biological and water quality study may factor into regulatory actions takenby Ohio EPA and are incorporated into Water Quality Permit Support Documents(WQPSDs), State Water Quality Management Plans, the Ohio Nonpoint SourceAssessment, and the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305[b] report).

Five Year Basin ApproachIn 1990 the Ohio EPA initiated an organized, sequential approach to monitoringand assessment termed the Five-Year Basin Approach. One of the principalobjectives of this new approach was to better coordinate the collection of ambientmonitoring data so that information and reports would be available in time tosupport water quality management activities such as the reissuance of NPDESpermits and periodic revision of the Ohio water quality standards (WQS). Theinitial step in this process was to section the state into 25 different hydrologicunits which represented aggregations of subbasins within the 23 major river basinspreviously delineated by Ohio EPA for the PEMSO system. The 25 hydrologicEPA districts. Thus within a given year, monitoring takes place within five of the

i


areas were each assigned to one of five basin years with respect to the five Ohiohydrologic areas and within each of the five Ohio EPA districts. Five years isrequired to complete the cycle of monitoring within each of the 25 hydrologicareas. Once the field monitoring is completed, data analysis and reporting takesplace. The end product is termed a Technical Support Document (TSD) whichcontains the summary and integration of the biological, chemical, and physicalassessments.

Ohio EPA's approach to surface water monitoring and management via the Five-Year Basin Approach essentially serves as an environmental feedback process taking"cues" from environmental indicators to effect needed changes or adjustmentswithin water quality management. This hierarchy is essentially in place within theTSD process and represents, from a technical assessment and indicators frameworkstandpoint, a watershed approach. The environmental indicators used in thisprocess are categorized as stressor, exposure, and response indicators. Stressorindicators generally include activities that impact, but which may or may notdegrade the environment. This includes point and nonpoint source loadings, landuse changes, and other broad-scale influences that generally result fromanthropogenic activities. Exposure indicators include chemical-specific, wholeeffluent toxicity, tissue residues, and biomarkers, each of which suggest or provideevidence of biological exposure to stressor agents. Response indicators include thedirect measures of the status of use designations. For aquatic life uses thecommunity and population response parameters that are represented by thebiological indices that comprise Ohio EPA’s biological criteria are the principalresponse indicators. For human body contact uses (e.g., Primary ContactRecreation) fecal bacteria (e.g., E. Coli, fecal coliforms) are the principal responseindicators. The key to having a successful watershed approach is in using thedifferent types of indicators within the roles that are the most appropriate foreach. The inappropriate use of stressor and exposure indicators as substitutes forresponse indicators is at the root of the national problem of widely divergent305(b) statistics reported between the States. This issue is discussed in the 1994Ohio Water Resource Inventory (Ohio EPA 1995).

Monitoring for Status and TrendsAn assessment of the impact of multiple sources on the receiving waters of aeffluent, sediment, flows), biological (fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages), and

ii


watershed includes an evaluation of the available chemical/physical (water column,habitat data which have been collected by Ohio EPA pursuant to the Five-YearBasin Approach. Other data which is evaluated includes, but is not limited to,NPDES permittee self-monitoring data, effluent and mixing zone bioassaysconducted by Ohio EPA, the permittee, or U.S. EPA, spills data compiled by Ohio EPA, and fish kill information from the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The integrationof this information into a report for each study area is accomplished via the TSDprocess. Besides reporting on status and trends for the applicable designated uses,the TSD also identifies and describes causal associations of use impairments withthe predominant causes and sources of impairment. The completion of thisprocess enables the structured use of the output from the TSD (i.e., the assessmentof water bodies) to support virtually any Ohio EPA program where surface waterquality is a concern.

Technical Bulletin SeriesThe systematic monitoring and assessment of Ohio surface waters via the Five-YearBasin Approach since 1990, and overall since 1980, has produced a comprehensivedatabase that can be used to address issues of statewide and program importance. As such, Ohio EPA periodically produces technical bulletins to provide an in-depthanalysis of specific issues ranging from the validation of specific water qualitycriteria to process descriptions for tools such as the biological criteria. Theseanalyses would not be possible without the systematic baseline monitoring andassessment which are an aggregate result of the Five-Year Basin Approach.

iii


CONTENTSChapter Page

1 The Role of Monitoring in Water Quality Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ITFM/NWQMC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106/604b Monitoring Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EPA Water Indicators Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adequate State Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Federal Requirements and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 CFR Part 130 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EPA 106 monitoring guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water indicators initiative - EPA vision statement on environmental indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adequate State Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3 State Requirements and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ohio Water Pollution Law (ORC 6111) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ohio Administrative Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategic Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4 Informational and Indicators Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Hierarchy of Environmental Indicators for Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator Information Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Water Quality Management Program Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic Information Gathering Approach/ Rotating Basin Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2 Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designated Aquatic Life Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biological criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3 Permitting, Enforcement, and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NPDES Permit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforcement Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4 Section 305b Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv



2.5 Total Maximum Daily Loads/Section 303d Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Section 401 Certifications2.7 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management/Watersheds . . . . . . . . .

Nonpoint Source Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unified Watershed Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.8 Hazardous Waste Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voluntary Action Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remedial Response Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emergency Response and Special Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.9 Comparative Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State of the Environment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.10 Lake Erie Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RAP Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ohio EPA Biological Assessment and Biocriteria Development . . . . . . . . Lake Erie Quality Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.11 Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Ohio EPA Surface Water Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Long Term Vision for Monitoring and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Goals for States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring Design Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coverage of All Aquatic Resource Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring and Assessment Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2 Present Surface Water Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources Devoted to Monitoring and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring Networks and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Other Monitoring Networks and Activities in Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Heidelberg Water Quality Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v



4.4 Scioto River Cooperative Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 County Soil and Water Conservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Volunteer Monitoring Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Monitoring Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Towards Increased Monitoring and Assessment Output . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impact of the 15 Year TMDL Development Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Five-Year Surface Water Monitoring Strategy was compiled from the manyyears of experience and work of numerous Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Waterstaff in the Central and District Offices. !!CONTRIBUTORS & REVIEWERSWILL BE ADDED IN FINAL!! The strategy was coordinated and compiled byChris Yoder.

vii


Chapter 1: The Role of Monitoring in Water Quality Management

1.1 IntroductionThere is abundant evidence and appreciation that our air, land, and water resourcesare subject to a variety of effects of human activities on local, regional, national,and global scales. However, mere recognition that these effects can occur and thatsome are potentially detrimental is simply insufficient. The ability to measure theextent and severity of these effects and further understand the causes and sourcesof adverse effects is needed to construct accurate, effective, and proportionatemanagement responses. Good environmental monitoring is the key to enablingthis process.

Environmental monitoring is the systematic collection and evaluation of dataabout the chemical, physical, and biological quality of the environment and howexternal changes exerted both naturally and anthropogenically affect that quality(Cooly 1976). The pace of the latter has been greatly accelerated during the 20thcentury on local, regional, and even global scales. However, the mere recognitionand cataloguing of such changes is insufficient for developing strategies to abateand manage the harmful activities.

Some estimate that more than $500 billion has been spent on water pollutionabatement nationally since the early 1970s. Yet, with only a few exceptions, wehave largely been unable to document the effectiveness of these expenditures inenvironmental terms (ITFM 1992). The reason may lie in the fact that only 0.2%of the amount spent on water pollution abatement has been devoted to ambientmonitoring (ITFM 1992), clearly an inadequate amount. Our challenge then is tomeasure, characterize, and understand the significance of these changes and this iscrucial to the effective management and protection of water resources. Good,comprehensive environmental monitoring is an indispensable component ofachieving this goal (ITFM 1992).

Monitoring and assessment information, when based on a sufficientlycomprehensive and rigorous system of environmental indicators, is integral toprotecting human health, preserving and restoring ecosystem integrity, andsustaining a viable economy. Such a strategy is intended to achieve a better returnon public and private investments in environmental protection and naturalresources management. In short, more and better monitoring and assessment


information is needed to answer the fundamental questions that have beenrepeatedly asked about the condition of our water resources and shape thestrategies needed to deal with both existing and emerging problems within thecontext of watershed-based management.

ITFM/NWQMC RecommendationsMonitoring plays a key role in the management of surface water resources bydriving the progression of events from initial problem identification andcharacterization through the making of management decisions in such areas aspollution abatement and water quality management programs to the enforcementof laws and regulations. A long succession of federal laws and guidance haveattempted to relate the purposes of water monitoring directly to managementgoals. Initial guidance for the coordination of federal water data acquisitionactivities date to that issued by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget in 1964. Morerecently the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM)issued a series of reports (ITFM 1992, 1993) and a national strategy for watermonitoring (ITFM 1995) which lead to the establishment of the National WaterQuality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) in 1997. Simply stated, these latterefforts were aimed at revitalizing the role of monitoring in state and federal waterquality management programs to provide the basic data and information needed toanswer questions about the status and trends of water quality nationwide andguide the development of new water quality management activities.

Improving the current situation requires a strategy which has generally beenprovided by the ITFM and federal 106 monitoring guidance. According to theITFM (1992), water monitoring has four major aspects:

ContextMonitoring should be the foundation of water resource policy making andmanagement. This means that monitoring information should not only beavailable to managers and policy makers, but be sufficiently comprehensible andconclusive. A critical aspect is not just providing data and information, but anassessment of what that information means. This includes a determination ofwhether or not important criteria, standards, and other managementrequirements are being achieved and the degree (both quantitatively andqualitatively) to which any are being exceeded or abrogated. This process

2


requires the use of multiple classes of indicators, each functioning within theirmost appropriate role and in their proper relationship to each other.

ScopeMonitoring includes the following activities: articulating objectives; collecting,storing, and interpreting data; conversion of data to information; preparingassessments of the information (what does it mean?); communication ofassessment results; and evaluation of management program performance. Thisorganization allows water quality management programs to become moreappropriately focused on the resource at issue, as opposed to the caretaking ofadministrative systems and processes. This fosters an approach of managing forresults in the environment where administrative processes are tools to improvethe environment, not an endpoint in themselves (Figure 1).

ScaleMonitoring includes all relevant scales such as site-specific investigations,regional descriptions and comparisons, and statewide summaries at varioustemporal scales. State monitoring strategies need to be constructed so that thesame basic core data supports assessments at all of these scales. The specificdesigns, indicators, and assessment tools used must be tailored to the regionalpeculiarities in climate, soils, land use, geology, ecological resources,socioeconomic influences, and geography. Thus the indicators that are usedneed to be sufficiently developed and calibrated to reflect these influences andthe scales at which the monitoring program must operate.

ObjectivesGenerally, monitoring objectives include: 1) defining status and trends; 2)identification of existing and emerging problems; 3) support of water qualitymanagement policy and program development; 4) evaluating programeffectiveness; 5) responding to emergencies, and 6) continued development andimprovement of the understanding of the basic chemical, physical, andbiological processes that affect environmental quality.

Effective monitoring and, by extension, water quality management programs needthe supporting infrastructure in terms of personnel and logistical support to carryout monitoring from a “cost-of-doing-business” standpoint. At this time the

3


proportion of a State water quality management program that should encompassall monitoring and assessment activities is estimated to range from 10-20% interms of staffing and funding. This figure may vary by State depending on some ofthe variables described above.

1.2 Federal Requirements and GuidanceMonitoring program requirements are generally articulated in the Water QualityPlanning and Management regulations (40 CFR Part 130) as follows:

130.4 Water Quality Monitoring

(a) In accordance with section 106(e)(1), States must establishappropriate monitoring methods and procedures (including biologicalmonitoring) necessary to compile and analyze data on the quality of watersof the United States and, to the extent practicable, ground waters.

. . . and,

(b) The State’s water monitoring program shall include the collection andanalysis of physical, chemical, and biological data and quality assurance andcontrol programs to assure scientifically valid data. The uses of these datainclude determining abatement and control priorities; developing andreviewing water quality standards, total maximum daily loads, wasteloadallocations and load allocations; assessing compliance with National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permits by dischargers; reportinginformation to the public through the section 305(b) report and reviewingsite-specific monitoring efforts.

References to monitoring based information requirements and the implications ofresulting assessments also appear in parts 130.5 (Continuous Planning Process),130.6 (Water Quality Management Plans), 130.7 (Total Maximum Daily Loads),130.8 (Water Quality Report), and 130.10 (State submittals to EPA).

As the State agency with delegated authority under the Clean Water Act, OhioEPA must comply with federal requirements and guidelines issued by U.S. EPA. For monitoring and assessment activities, U.S. EPA issued guidance for the

4


development of State monitoring and assessment programs for awarding Section106 and 604[b] grants in 1994 (U.S. EPA 1994). According to this guidance,States should provide a multi-year (preferably on a 5-year cycle) monitoringstrategy with the 106 grant application. This strategy provides the framework forthe Regional/State agreement on the annual monitoring workplan. The monitoringstrategy should be consistent with and developed in support of related waterquality management program goals. It should include a description of how theState will integrate ambient and program-specific monitoring such as nonpointsource assessments, lakes, wetlands, coastal waters, CSOs, stormwater, TMDLs, and305(b)/303(d) reporting. The strategy should explicitly describe how these areintegrated to provide the total body of information necessary to support waterquality management programs.

Section 106/604(b) Monitoring GuidanceRevised monitoring guidance issued under sections 106 and 604(b) becameavailable in October 1994 (U.S. EPA 1994) following a lengthy process. This waslargely an outgrowth of the ITFM process which took place between 1991 and1995 and which has been detailed in 3 reports (ITFM 1992, 1993, 1995). The106/604(b) guidance updates and supersedes previous guidance published in 1984by U.S. EPA, Region V (U.S. EPA 1984) and later by U.S. EPA in 1985 (U.S. EPA1985). The 1994 strategy lists five key objectives for the monitoring program:

1) the identifications of impaired waters throughout the U.S.;2) increasing the number of waters assessed by utilizing cost-effective

techniques and methods appropriate to the condition of and goals forspecific water bodies;

3) achieving greater comparability in parameters and methods to enableimproved data sharing and geographical comparability;

4) using common indicators to report on the condition of the nation’s waters;and,

5) improving information sharing with both public and private organizationsand in the context of watersheds.

These were further allied with the theme of revitalizing State monitoring programsand reporting core information in a comparable manner.

5


Monitoring Strategy GoalsThe overall goal of the 106/604(b) strategy is to develop and implement a surfaceand ground water monitoring strategy to help achieve the goals and objectives ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) and other environmental initiatives. This requiresthe use of a mix of approaches that provide for the design, collection,measurement, storage, retrieval, assessment, and biological/ecological data necessaryto efficiently and effectively meet the objectives of the strategy.

An acceptable State monitoring strategy includes the following purposes:

1) determining status and trends;2) identifying causes and sources of impairment and threats and ranking in

priority order;3) designing and implementing water quality management programs;4) determining program effectiveness; and,5) responding to emergencies.

Implementing a State strategy consistent with these purposes should support thedevelopment and attainment of water quality standards (WQS), TMDL/303(d)listing and development, NPDES permitting, nonpoint source assessment andmanagement, watershed and ecosystem protection, and the development and use ofenvironmental indicators.

Design and CoverageThe goal of the U.S. EPA monitoring guidance is to assess all State waters (surface,ground, and coastal) on a periodic basis ranging from 4-10 and as negotiatedbetween the Region and the State. The monitoring design(s) used by the Stateshould consider the condition of and goals set for various waters and shouldinclude a mix of networks including synoptic surveys, fixed stations, intensive andscreening level monitoring, and probabalistic monitoring. Many States alreadyemploy a five-year rotating basin design.

Data Collection and MethodsThe major theme is to produce chemical, physical, and biological data of a knownquality so as to enhance and improve comparisons across and between States andto make the data useable for data sharing purposes. A key issue in meeting this

6


objective of the federal guidance is to establish data quality objectives for each dataor indicator type. Multiple indicators are to be used and should encompasschemical, physical, and biological measures and be relevant to the water qualitymanagement issues being assessed. Sampling locations should also be locatedconsistently and in accordance with U.S. EPA’s Locational Data Policy (U.S. EPA1994).

Environmental IndicatorsStates are to identify specific environmental indicators to measure and use inreporting progress towards meeting identified program goals. This process requiresan understanding of the most appropriate role of individual indicators and havingmechanisms in place by which these indicators can be tracked and reported on aregular basis.

Data and Information ManagementData is to be stored in a manner so that it is easily retrieved, analyzed, andavailable for sharing between agencies and institutions. These data should also beentered or uploaded into the EPA STORET and Waterbody System (WBS)databases.

Analysis and ReportingReporting should take place, at a minimum, in accordance with the requirementsand guidance issued for section 305(b) reports which includes using the WBS. Other reports should be produced and tailored to the State specific needs andaudiences.

Reference ConditionEcoregional reference conditions should be established for the analysis of waterquality and biological data. This process is specifically recommended for thedevelopment of biological criteria and is useful for determining regional patterns ina host of environmental variables and indicators.

CollaborationMonitoring activities should be conducted in coordination with existing andplanned programs in other public and private organizations in order to maximizethe benefits of data sharing.

7


EPA Water Indicators InitiativeAnother important component of the overall approach to improving andrevitalizing monitoring and assessment as an integral part of State water qualitymanagement has been the recent initiatives by U.S. EPA to institutionalize the useof environmental indicators. Increasing the usage of environmental indicators is animportant goal of the U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA intends to change the wayprogress towards meeting Clean Water Act goals is measured and in how EPAconducts business with the States. EPA wishes to shift from what has become asingular reliance on administrative activity indicators (“bean counting”) to abroader reliance on comprehensive environmental measures. EPA also believesthat environmental indicators presents an opportunity for States to reduce theburden of EPA oversight. In exchange, an increased emphasis on environmentalindicators and basic information gathering (i.e., ambient monitoring andassessment) is sought through the savings gained in reduced administrativerequirements. The commitment of U.S. EPA to the concept of a comprehensiveenvironmental indicators framework is exemplified by the following visionstatement:

“EPA will use environmental indicators, together with measures of activityaccomplishments, to evaluate the success of our programs. Working inpartnership with others, we will be able to report status and trends of U.S.and global environmental quality to the public, Congress, states, theregulated community, and the international community. National programmanagers will use environmental indicators to determine where theirprograms are achieving the desired environmental results, and whereinadequate results indicate strategies need to be changed. Over time, asmore complete data are reported, environmental indicators will become theAgency’s primary means of reporting and evaluating success”.

This also responded to the mandates of the Government Performance and ResultsAct (GPRA) which spurred the development of strategic goals by the Office ofWater, national indicators for surface waters (U.S. EPA 1995a), a conceptualframework for using environmental information in decision-making (U.S. EPA1995b), and the Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement concept. While these are critical first steps in addressing some of the previously mentioned

8


program deficiencies, there remain wide gaps between the U.S. EPA visionstatement and the support that is provided for adequate State monitoringprograms, particularly for bioassessments and biological criteria. Such criticismsare not new (e.g., U.S. GAO 1986).

Related initiatives include the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project(Berquist et al. 1995) and the ITFM effort. Each of these outlined partialframeworks for addressing deficiencies in water quality management. Takentogether, these offer a more complete approach that should more effectively guidethe better use of State, local, and Federal resources and hopefully lead to solutionsfor some of the remaining and much more complex water resource problems thatare identified with improved monitoring and assessment efforts.

Adequate State Monitoring ProgramThe question of what constitutes an adequate State watershed monitoring andassessment program has yet to be fully articulated by U.S. EPA even though this isimplicitly obvious from the growing list of programs which require this type ofinformation. Successfully addressing this issue is key to resolving currentdeficiencies and inequities within and between State programs and questions aboutthe reliability of State and national 305(b) reports and, by extension, 303)d)listings, nonpoint source and watershed management, and water quality standards.

Through a cooperative agreement between Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA, Yoder (1997)outlined the important elements and concepts of an adequate State watershedmonitoring and assessment effort. This document relied principally on therecommendations of the ITFM process, EPA’s environmental indicators initiative,and Ohio EPA’s own experience in operating a consistently funded program for aperiod of 18 years. Elements of this document are detailed in section 3.

1.3 State Requirements and GuidanceOhio EPA is a delegated State for CWA programs and as such is responsible forcarrying out all water quality management activities which includes monitoring andassessment (40 CFR Part 130) and water quality standards (40CFR Part 131). Additionally, the Ohio Water Pollution Law (ORC 6111) and Ohio AdministrativeCode (OAC 3745) contain several provisions which at least indirectly relate to theuse of monitoring and assessment information in support of agency management

9


activities for surface waters.

Ohio Water Pollution Law (ORC 6111)The Ohio Water Pollution Law allows the Director to conduct studies,investigations, research, and demonstrations and disseminate findings related tothe causes, prevention, and control of water pollution (e.g., ORC 6111.03). Inaddition, other provisions of the law either require or allow the consideration ofmonitoring and assessment information in the administration and development ofdischarge permits, water quality standards, planning, and permits to install. References to comprehensive studies and water quality planning in ORC 6111.042at least implicitly refer to the use of this type of information. Administrative rulescontain more specific references to specific activities and indicators.

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)The Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1) contain chemical-specific criteria which areexpressed as numerical concentrations designed to prevent lethality, acute toxicity,and chronic effects to aquatic life, wildlife, and humans. Physical criteria are alsoincluded (e.g., temperature) and are designed to prevent adverse effects topopulations and communities of aquatic life. Biological criteria are numericalendpoints which are used to serve as attainment/non-attainment thresholds for thecommon warmwater habitat aquatic life use designations. Narrative provisions inthe WQS set general standards for the overall condition of water bodies andaquatic life and wildlife. These criteria can functionally serve as environmentalindicators either singly or as aggregate index measurements. As such, theseprovide the most direct targets by which monitoring provides the basic data todetermine compliance. Further embedded within these criteria and associatedconcepts are the supporting information that is used to calibrate the applicationsof specific chemical, physical, and biological criteria. For example, the biologicalcriteria are calibrated and derived based on a network of regional reference siteswhich are stratified by ecoregion, stream and river size, and other regionalstratification elements. Reference thresholds have also been developed forchemical/physical parameters in the water column and bottom sediments for use inassessments. The emerging area of nutrient criteria development will require asimilar approach. Monitoring and assessment is required not only to provide thebasic data, but as a maintenance function since regionally-derived criteria arerevisited on a 10 year cycle.

10


The criteria and process for developing water quality based limitations fordischarges is detailed in OAC 3745-2. These were developed as part of the GreatLakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) process and include rules for reasonablepotential determinations, background chemical quality, mixing zone requirements,permit issuance conditioned on monitoring results, and procedures for wholeeffluent toxicity limits. Federal requirements for this are included in 40CFR Part122.

Strategic Planning ProcessIn 1994 a Strategic Management Council was organized to develop and implementan action plan to arrive at an initial vision for the Strategic Management Process(Ohio EPA 1996a). The action plan included identification of customers and theirrequirements, an inventory of existing planning activities, and an update of theplanning calendar initially developed at the senior staff retreat. Benchmarking withother planning processes was accomplished by reviewing numerous articles andpublications regarding planning in general and case studies of governmentalagencies in particular. The Strategic Management Process is a six-step process: 1)situation assessment; 2) strategic direction; 3) strategy development; 4) resourceacquisition and allocation; 5) annual plans; and, 6) work schedules. Included amongthe long term goals of this process is that of increasing the number and miles ofstreams and rivers achieving swimmable/fishable goals from 50% to 75% by theyear 2000. Tracking this goal is based on the data and information supplied byambient surface water monitoring. In support of the long term goals, threestrategic themes are prevalent in all the division/district/office plans. The themesare 1) Public and Community Involvement, 2) Quality Service Improvements, 3)Technical Assistance/Compliance and Outreach. These themes represent some ofthe "hows" the Agency will employ to achieve the long term goals.

The approach to implementing these themes within the surface water program isas follows:

• Improving and Protecting Water Resource Quality• Watersheds• Information Management• Monitoring and Assessment

11


• Ohio EPA Quality Principles• Communication, Legislative/Regulatory Efforts• Tools (e.g., permits, grants, GIS, enforcement actions, multi-stakeholder

processes, pollution prevention, compliance assistance).

The Watershed approach is the coordinating framework for the management ofwater resources. Partnerships, which span all levels of government and involve bothprivate and public entities, are key to designing and implementing watershed goals.The application of specific management tools (e.g., permits, grants for localimplementation techniques, enforcement actions, computer networking, datamanagement, pollution prevention, nonpoint source pollution controls, stormwaterprevention, etc.) is to be based on a comprehensive analysis of the water resource. The plan also calls for the consideration of new and innovative operations andtechnologies where they result in net water quality improvement including thedevelopment of alternative pollution control strategies as a means to attainingwater quality standards. This may include, but is not limited to, pollutant trading,pollution prevention activities, pollution minimization plans, phased TMDLs (totalmaximum daily loads), compliance incentives, pooling and leverage of financialresources for implementation and supplemental environmental projects. Thesurface water programs are in the midst of a transition to a watershedmanagement approach. In this approach the District Offices provide a criticalconnection to local and regional stakeholders and work directly with these partnersby developing and supporting watershed approaches.

Monitoring and assessment is a critical component of the overall strategicmanagement process within the Division of Surface Water. Specifically the plansstates that DSW “. . . will maintain and build upon the successes of our monitoringand assessment program and other information management system components toproduce the necessary environmental indicators of water resource quality andexpand our universe of useful information”. Furthermore this will be linked to thewatershed geographic unit. DSW's information management systems will beimproved and include internal data from categories and sources such as effluentquality and flow for point sources, compliance statistics, ambient chemical andbiological data, locational data, and non-regulatory actions (e.g., nonpoint grants)formore efficient and widespread use throughout DSW. Better use of externalsources of data, i.e., ODNR wetlands inventory, Nature works, etc. will be made.

12


The strategic plan calls for DSW to support and maintain the presently usedmonitoring and assessment tools and designs. In terms of monitoring andassessment output DSW will strive towards the goal of satisfying ambientmonitoring and assessment demands to at least 80 percent of that identifiedannually. At the same time, there will be an effort to develop new monitoring andassessment tools and approaches with the goal of enhancing the Five-Year BasinApproach to attain the national goal of assessing 100 percent of surface waterresources. Part of this will entail making use of monitoring data provided by other(non-Ohio EPA) institutions and organizations provided they meet data qualityobjectives and QA/QC requirements. Emphasis will be placed on encourage thesegroups to develop high quality and robust assessment capabilities that meet theappropriate data quality objectives.

This type of monitoring and assessment approach fosters management for waterresource integrity which integrates chemical/physical variables, biotic factors, flowregime, habitat structure, and energy source. Management resources can then befocused on the principal causes and effects of impairment based on the results ofmonitoring and assessment. This includes responding to the conclusions andinformation in the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305[b] report) and othersynthesized data by adjusting programmatic and policy directions as needed. DSWis committed in the strategic management process to investigate and determinecauses and sources of impairment, their relative magnitude, geographic variation,and any data and information gaps when characterizing them. This also includessupporting research and development to enhance understanding the causes of waterresource impairments, problem discovery, trends, and the development of new andrevised policies and procedures for emerging issues.

Finally, the information provided by monitoring and assessment will be used tobuild foundations which support needed legislation and regulations foraccomplishing water resource improvements and implementation of the watershedapproach. Using water quality assessment and program analysis, gaps and needs inlegislation and regulations to address water resource management will be identified.

1.4 Informational and Indicators HierarchyAn important outcome of the strategic planning and management process was the

13


need to make better use of existing and new environmental indicators. For surfacewaters, DSW completed an environmental indicators pilot project in associationwith U.S. EPA, Office of Water. This project was intended to test the nationalindicators for water that were then being considered and many of which wereeventually adopted (U.S. EPA 1995a, 1995b). Increasing the use of environmentalindicators is an important goal of the Office of Water. EPA intends to change theway progress towards meeting Clean Water Act goals is measured and in how EPAconducts business with the States. EPA wishes to shift from what has become asingular reliance on administrative activity indicators (“bean counting”) to abroader reliance on comprehensive environmental measures. EPA also believesthat environmental indicators presents an opportunity for States to reduce theburden of EPA oversight. In exchange, an increased emphasis on environmentalindicators and basic information gathering (i.e., ambient monitoring andassessment) is sought through the savings gained in reduced administrativerequirements.

An environmental indicator is defined as ". . . a measurable feature which singly orin combination provides managerially and scientifically useful evidence ofecosystem quality, or reliable evidence of trends in quality." (ITFM 1995) Thisdefinition provides some of the underlying ground rules by which environmentalindicators should be used. Indicators should not only have a firm basis in science,but have relevance to management needs and uses. Environmental indicators,when used within their most appropriate roles, provide the means by which waterquality management programs can successfully link management actions toenvironmental results. This approach will be most successful when direct measures(as opposed to surrogates) are used to measure goals such as those embodied inthe designated uses defined within State water quality standards.

Our vision for environmental indicators has resulted in the institutionalization ofindicator usage throughout the water quality management process at Ohio EPA. This has resulted in better environmental communication, forecasting, policymaking, program evaluation, and budget decisions. Furthermore, environmentalindicators have become an integral component of environmental decision-making. This now supplements administrative activity measures (i.e., “bean counting”). Indicators have been accepted as objective measures of environmental quality, notnecessarily as negative or positive sources of environmental information.

14


Environmental indicators are also becoming harmonized across all levels ofgovernment. This has been accomplished by focusing on the following areas:

1. Environmental communication: Indicators now provide legislators, theGovernor's office, and other public officials with understandable end-pointsenabling better informed, more accountable decisions to be made. A naturalshift towards decision-making based on environmental data and informationoccurred as the information base was developed and strengthened.

2. Environmental information management and data acquisition: Environmentalindicators based on environmental data are relied upon as valid, science-basedinformation in lieu of anecdotal sources. Environmental data is collected on asystematic basis to measure and characterize the quality of environmentalresources in addition to the success of management programs. Theinformation is available to develop cross-walks between data sources andenvironmental indicators and between all levels of government, privateenterprise, and the public.

3. Public involvement and education: The public would become more involvedin using environmental indicators at the front-end of the process to assist inidentifying environmental benefits and values and at the back-end to reviewand comment on outputs and outcomes. Some data collection activities couldalso be enhanced by increased public involvement, particularly at the localwatershed level.

4. Program evaluation: A front-end evaluation of water quality managementprogram effectiveness based on environmental indicators would become moreformalized and routine. An self-evaluation and oversight framework usingindicators to measure the overall success of management programs would bein place.

5. Partnerships with the regulated community: Indicators would be tied toadministrative fees and certification processes. The regulated community andthe State would strive to increase regulatory flexibility in exchange forimproving monitoring and assessment, and ultimately environmentalindicators, while maintaining and improving environmental quality.

15


Much of the above is already envisioned in the Division of Surface Water strategicplan (Ohio EPA 1996a). One of the better examples is the Ohio 2001 goals forsurface waters and the process for reporting on progress towards that goal via theOhio Water Resource Inventory(305[b] report). Various components of anintegrated set of environmental indicators have long been in place within themonitoring and assessment program and are evidenced in the many reports andevaluations completed each year. Efforts to improve the establishment of linkagesbetween indicators of pollution source performance and ambient quality indicatorsare on-going. However, to achieve the full use and integration of environmentalindicators in accordance with the vision statement will require some significantchanges in which measures State water quality management programs value as themost meaningful indications of overall program success.

A Hierarchy of Environmental Indicators for WaterA carefully conceived ambient monitoring approach, using cost-effective indicatorscomprised of biological, chemical, and physical measures, can ensure that allrelevant pollution sources are judged objectively on the basis of quantifiableenvironmental results. Such an approach simultaneously assures that indicatorswill be representative of the elements and processes of the five factors whichdetermine water resource integrity. However, composite measures that reflect thestatus of water resource integrity must also be included. It is these types ofindicators which have, until only recently, been missing from State and Federalprograms.

The indicators hierarchy developed by U.S. EPA provides a robust organizationalframework within which the use of environmental indicators should take place(Figure 1). This also offers a structured approach to assure that managementprograms are implemented and , if necessary, adjusted based on environmentalfeedback. A comprehensive ambient monitoring effort which includes indicatorsrepresentative of key variables within the five factors which determine theintegrity of the water resource (Figure 2) is essential to successfully implementinga true environmental indicators approach. For this approach to be successful,ambient monitoring must take place at the same scale at which managementactions are being applied. For States this is at a local, waterbody-specific scaleconsistent with that delineated in the U.S. EPA Waterbody System Reach File 3

16


(e.g., river or stream reach-specific). Such information provides the basis for otheruses including the aggregation of information over broader geographical areas (e.g.,305[b] reports, nonpoint source assessments, etc.).

Ohio EPA relies on the tiered indicators approach in attempting to link the resultsof administrative activities with true environmental measures. This integratedframework relies on the hierarchical continuum of administrative and trueenvironmental indicators. This framework was initially developed by U.S. EPA(1990a) as part of the original process for developing environmental indicators. The framework includes six “levels” of indicators as follows:

Level 1 - actions taken by regulatory agencies (e.g., permitting, enforcement,grants);

Level 2 - responses by the regulated community (e.g., construction of treatmentworks, pollution prevention);

Level 3 - changes in discharged quantities (e.g., pollutant loadings);Level 4 - changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat);Level 5 - changes in uptake and/or assimilation (e.g., tissue

contamination,biomarkers, assimilative capacity); and,Level 6 - changes in health, ecology, or other effects (e.g., ecological condition,

pathogenicity). In this process the results of administrative activities (levels 1 and 2) are followedby changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality (levels 3, 4, and 5), allof which leads to measurable environmental “results” (level 6). The process ismulti-directional with the level 6 indicators providing overall feedback about thecompleteness and accuracy of the process through the preceding levels. While thisillustration uses point source terms, the process is adaptable to nonpoint sourcesand media other than surface waters.

The specific information that is generally available to Ohio EPA is indicated foreach level (Figure 1). Some of these are highly developed and calibrated, some areinherently qualitative, some are in various stages of ongoing refinement, and othersare in the initial stages of definition and development. The further refinement of

17

Actions byEPA andStates

Responsesby theRegulatedCommunitiy

Changes inDischargeQuantities

Changes inAmbientConditions

Changes inUptake and/orAssimilation

Changes inHealth andEcology, orOther Effects

• NPDES Permit Issuance• Compliance/Enforcement• Pretreatment Program• Actual Funding• CSO Requirements• Storm Water Permits• 319 NPS Projects• 404/401 Certification• Stream/Riparian Protection

• POTW Construction• Local Limits• Storm Water Controls• BMPs for NPS Control• Pollution Prevention Measures

• Point Source Loadings -Effluent & Influent

• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)• NPDES Violations• Toxic Release Inventory• Spills & Other Releases• Fish Kills

• Water Column Chemistry• Sediment Chemistry• Habitat Quality• Flow Regime

• Assimilative Capacity -TMDL/WLA

• Biomarkers• Tissue Contamination

• Biota (Biocriteria)• Bacterial Contamination• Target Assemblages

(RT&E, Declining Species)

LEVEL 4

LEVEL 5

LEVEL 6

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Figure 1. Hierarchy of administrative and environmental indicators which is used byOhio EPA for water quality management activities such as monitoring andassessment, reporting, and the evaluation of overall program effectiveness. Thisis patterned after a model developed by U.S. EPA (1995b).

18


WATERRESOURCEINTEGRITY

FlowRegime

High/LowExtremes

Precipitation &Runoff

Velocity

Land Use

GroundWater

ChemicalVariables

BioticFactors

EnergySource

HabitatStructure

Hardness

Turbidity

pH

D.O.

TemperatureAlkalinity

Solubilities

Adsorption

Nutrients

Organics

Reproduction

DiseaseParasitism

Feeding

Predation

Competition

Nutrients

Sunlight

Organic MatterInputs

1 and 2Production

o o

SeasonalCycles

RiparianVegetation

Siltation

Current

Substrate

Sinuosity

Canopy InstreamCover

Gradient

ChannelMorphology

Bank Stability

Width/Depth

Figure 2. The five major factors which determine the integrityof the water resource (modified after Karr et al.1986). Environmental indicators are chosen torepresent important variables and the compositecondition of the water resource.

the supporting data sources for each indicator level can be incorporated as each isdeveloped. Thus the hierarchy serves a dual role as an information tracking deviceand a feedback mechanism. For example, we can now begin to ascertain theaggregate effect of the billions of dollars spent on water pollution control since theearly 1970s by comparing the implementation of level 1 administrative actions (e.g.,funding, permitting) with quantifiable measures of environmental condition (level6). This hierarchy is conceptually comparable to the pressure-state-response

paradigm frequentlycited as part of thesustainable developmentframework (U.S. EPA1995b), and the GPRAmodel of output andoutcomes.

Superimposed on thishierarchy is the conceptof stressor, exposure, andresponse indicators(Figure 1) similar to thatdeveloped by the U.S.EPA EnvironmentalMonitoring andAssessment Program(EMAP; U.S. EPA1991a). Stressorindicators generallyinclude activities whichhave the potential todegrade the aquaticenvironment such aspollutant discharges, landuse effects, and habitat

modifications (level 3). Exposure indicators are those which measure the apparenteffects of stressors and can include chemical water quality criteria, whole effluenttoxicity tests, tissue residues, and biomarkers, each of which provides evidence of

19


biological exposure to a stressor or bioaccumulative agent (levels 4 and 5). Response indicators are generally composite measures of the cumulative effects ofstress and exposure and include the more direct measures of biological communityand population response that are represented here by the biological indices whichcomprise the Ohio EPA biological criteria (level 6). Other response indicatorsinclude target assemblages (e.g., rare, threatened, endangered, special status, anddeclining species) or bacterial levels which serve as surrogates for recreational usedesignations. All of these indicators represent the essential technical elements forwatershed-based management approaches.

The key is to use the different indicators within the roles which are mostappropriate for each. Historically, this has not always been done. Previouscomparisons of chemical and biological indicator frameworks (Ohio EPA 1990;Yoder and Rankin 1997) illustrate a national problem - the inappropriate use ofstressor and exposure indicators as substitutes for response indicators. Stateswhich do not have well developed biological indicators still must report on thestatus of their waters to U.S. EPA. Unfortunately, the most readily availableinformation usually consists of stressor or exposure indicators which leads to theirsubstitutionary use. Response indicators are inherently better at evaluatingattainment of designated uses which are the basis of State water quality standards. An example is relying on biological community measures to evaluate designatedaquatic life uses in lieu of elevating chemical data into this role. More accuratelyportraying the condition of the nation’s aquatic resources depends much on thewider development and use of response indicators.

Indicator Information MatrixAs part of the surface water indicators pilot an evaluation of the ease of obtainingand completeness of each indicator was made (Table 1). This illustrates that theinformation available for each indicator is not equivalent and points to whereimprovements need to be made in both information management and indicatorsdevelopment.

The most readily accessible and complete data were from the level 6 ambientbioassessment indicators and some level 5 indicators. These are stored in the OhioECOS system which is not yet accessible to non-Ohio EPA users except by request.The level 3 and 4 indicators for effluent quality and ambient water quality were

20


Table 1. Summary of current data storage, ease of access, completeness of the database, andtype of data presentation made in the surface water indicators pilot completed by Ohio EPA(1998).

Data Component/Indicator Level

DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-

ness: Data Presentation:

LEVEL 1: Actions byEPA/State

NPDES History Main-frame

➌ ● Box & Whisker plots w/ lineoverlays

Compliance Actions Main-frame

➌ ◗ Bar Graph

PretreatmentApprovals/Reviews

Paper ➎ ❍ Box & Whisker plots w/ lineoverlays

Grant Funding Paper&Elec-tronic

➍ ❍ Data not presented*

CSO Requirements Paper ➍ ❍ Data not presented*Data Component/

Indicator Level DataStorage:Ease of ObtainingData:Data Completeness:

Data Presentation:

Storm WaterPermits

Main-frame

➌ ❍ Data not presented*

319 NPS Projects Elec-tronic

➊ ● Data not presented*

404/401 PermitActions

Elec-tronic

➊ ◗ Data not presented*

Local StreamProtection Actions

Paper ➎ ❍ Data not presented*

21



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


LEVEL 2: Responsesby Regulated Entities Data Component/


Data Presentation:Data Component/


Data Presentation:

Local Limits Paper ➎ ◗ Box & Whisker plots w/line overlays

Data Component/Indicator Level Data

Storage:Ease of ObtainingData:Data Completeness:

Data Presentation:

POTW Construction Elec-tronic

➍ ❍ Data not presented*Data Component/


Data Presentation:

Storm WaterControls

Main-frame

➌ ❍ Data not presented*

BMPs for Erosion Paper&Elec-tronic

➌ ● Column Plots & Table

BMPs for Nutrients Paper ➌ ● Column Plots & Tables

22



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


Data Component/Indicator LevelData


Data Presentation:

LEVEL 3: Changes inDischarged Quantities

Point Source Loadings- Effluent

Main-frame

➋ ● Box & Whisker plots

Point Source Loadings- Influent

Main-frame

➋ ◗ Box & Whisker plots

Whole EffluentToxicity

Paper&Elec-tronic

➌ ❍ Scatter PlotsData Component/


Data Presentation:

NPDES Violations Main-frame

➋ ◗ Bar GraphsData Component/


Data Presentation:

Toxic ReleaseInventory

Main-frame

➋ ◗ Data not presented*Data Component/


Data Presentation:

23



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


Spills Main-frame

➌ ● Bar Graph

Fish Kills Main-frame

➋ ● TableData Component/

Indicator LevelDataStorage:Ease of ObtainingData:Data Completeness:

Data Presentation:



Data Presentation:

LEVEL 4: Changes inAmbient Conditions

Water ColumnChemistry

Main-frame&Paper

➌ ● Box & Whisker Plots, ScatterPlots, Line and Bar graphs,

TableData Component/


Data Presentation:

Sediment Chemistry Main-frame&Paper

➋ ❍ Line and Bar Graphs

Habitat Quality Main-frame

➊ ● Table

24



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


LEVEL 5: Changes inAssimilation/Uptake

Assimilative Capacity Calcu-lated

N/A N/A Line and Bar GraphsData Component/




Data Presentation:

Biomarkers Elec-tronic

➊ ◗ Data not presented*

TissueContamination

Elec-tronic

➊ ● Bar Graph & Table



Data Presentation:

LEVEL 6: Changes inHealth, Ecology,Other Effects



Data Presentation:

25



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


BacterialContamination

Main-frame

➊ ● Line Graph & Scatter Plot

Biota Main-frame

➊ ● Scatter PlotsData Component/


Data Presentation:

Target Assemblages Main-frame

➊ ● Table

OTHER: PublicWater Supply Related Data Component/


Data Presentation:

Waterborne DiseaseOutbreaks

Elec-tronic

➎ ❍ Data not presented*Data Component/




Data Presentation:

26



DataStor-age:

Ease ofObtaining

Data:

DataComplete-


Exceedence ofDrinking WaterStandards

Elec-tronic&Paper

➌ ◗ Bar Graphs, Box &Whisker Plots, Table,

Scatter Plots

Waters MeetingPWS WQS

Elec-tronic&Paper

➌ ◗ Bar Graphs, Box &Whisker Plots, Tables

* Inadequate or otherwise potentially misleading data were not graphicallysummarized.

KEY:Ease of Obtaining Data Factors considered include location of data (internal or external sources), mode of data storage(paper, electronic database, mainframe database), skill and knowledge required to access thedata (mainframe, special contacts) and type of information associated with the data(applicable location, date, data type, etc.).

Symbols:➊ Data is readily accessible from a PC or by request.➋ Data is accessible, but some additional steps are required to access data.➌ Data is accessible, but obtaining it requires more steps and difficulty.➍ Data requires substantial effort to obtain.➎ Data very difficult to obtain.

Data CompletenessFactors considered include consistency and representation of data collection and reporting.

Symbols:● Data is standardized and consistent, sufficient data was available for analysis. ◗ Data somewhat consistent, but additional information was needed.❍ Data not standardized or consistent, much additional information was needed.

generally accessible, but each of the electronic systems (LEAPS and STORET) canbe difficult to access. Improvements in both systems are forthcoming. The mostdifficult to access and incomplete databases were those associated with the level 1and 2 categories and owe to these being in non-electronic storage. Improvementsin the data management structures for each of these indicators is needed before afully functioning system of indicators can exist.

27


Chapter 2: Water Quality Management Program Information Needs

2.1 IntroductionState water pollution control agencies function as custodians of water qualitymanagement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act[CWA]). This role is delegated by U.S. EPA to qualifying States which then havethe obligation to develop and maintain water quality standards, issue NPDESpermits, lead in the development of basin-wide water quality management plans,and monitor the effectiveness of the overall water quality management program. Ohio EPA is delegated by U.S. EPA for water quality management programs andactivities required by the Clean Water Act. As such, there are a host ofinformation needs associated with these programs which are described in thefollowing subsections.

Basic Information Gathering Approach/Rotating Basin Assessment ProcessOhio EPA utilizes a rotating basin approach as the principal monitoring andassessment design in support of surface water quality management objectives. Other networks are in place or have been used in the past, but these are generallydone within the context of the rotating basin design. This approach is the baselinedata and information generating framework -- all data and information needed tomeet water quality management objectives emanates from this approach.

Although a basin/watershed design has been used as part of the monitoring andassessment program since the late 1970s, it was in 1990 that the rotating basindesign was formalized and integrated with key water quality managementprograms. The approach was known then as the Five-Year Basin Approach toMonitoring and NPDES Permit Reissuance.

The Five-Year Basin Approach better organized the previous approach to planningfor and conducting watershed level assessments that had been in place since thelate 1970s. One of the principal objectives of this new approach was to bettercoordinate the collection of ambient monitoring data so that information andassessments would be available in time to support the reissuance of NPDESpermits and later, for many of the emerging watershed based management needs. The process by which data collection and assessments are accomplished is abiological and water quality survey.

28


A biological and water quality survey, or “biosurvey”, is an interdisciplinarymonitoring effort coordinated on a water body specific or watershed scale. Thiseffort may involve a relatively simple setting focusing on one or two small streams,one or two principal stressors, and a handful of sampling sites up to a much morecomplex effort including entire drainage basins, multiple and overlapping stressors,and tens of sites. Each year DSW conducts biosurveys in 6-12 different studyareas with an aggregate total of 300-500 sampling sites.

DSW employs biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and assessmenttechniques in biosurveys in order to meet three major objectives:

1) determine the extent to which use designations assigned in the Ohio WaterQuality Standards (WQS) are either attained or not attained;

2) determine if use designations assigned to a given water body are appropriateand attainable; and,

3) determine if anychanges in key ambientbiological, chemical, orphysical indicators havetaken place over time,particularly before andafter the implementationof point source pollutioncontrols or bestmanagement practices.

Five-Year Basin Approach to Monitoring

& Assessment

Ohio EPA Assessment& Reporting Process: Five-Year Basin Approach

AMBIENT SAMPLING (Biological, Chemical/

Physical, Habitat, Sediment)

DATA ANALYSIS (Incorporating field, effluent,

GIS, spills, kills, other source information)

Other Useable

Data

Planning & Prioritzation (Identify Information Needs)

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (Detailed

analysis & summary of status/trends throughout

watershed)

Figure 3. The five-year basin assessment process from planningand prioritization, sampling, data analysis, assessment,and reporting. The technical assessment is the basis for allother uses of the monitoring and assessment informationincluding findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The data gathered in abiosurvey is processed,evaluated, and synthesizedin one of severalassessment reports oroutputs (Figure 3). Thiscan range from a

29


Comprehensive,

Five Year Basin Monitoring & Assessment: Agency-Wide Program Support

5-Year Basin Assessment

Hazardous Waste Sites (NRDA/CERCLA)

NPDES Permits (PSD Support,

Permits to Install)

WQS/Criteria &Use Designations

401 Certification

(Habitat)

Status/Trends Reporting (305b; Ohio 2000 Goals)

Nonpoint Source

Assessment

Wet Weather Discharges (CSOs,

StormwaterEnforcement/Litigation

Support

Comparative Risk (State of Environment

Rept.)

Watersheds/TMDLs (303d

Listings)

Source Water Protection

Figure 4. Agency-wide program support provided by five year basinassessments.

integrated watershed report to the summaries compiled for thewaterbody system (WBS) in support of 305(b) reporting and extended products(e.g., 303[d] list). Each assessment also addresses any recommendations forrevisions to WQS, future monitoring needs, problem discovery, or other actions

which may beneeded to resolveimpairments of orthreats todesignated uses. While the principalfocus of a biosurveyis on the status ofaquatic life uses, thestatus of other usessuch as recreationand water supply, aswell as human healthconcerns, are alsoaddressed. As suchthe findings andconclusions of abiological and waterquality assessmentfactor into thevarious water quality

management activities of Ohio EPA (e.g., NPDES permits, Director’s Orders, theOhio Water Quality Standards [OAC 3745-1]) and are eventually incorporatedinto Water Quality Permit Support Documents (WQPSDs), State Water QualityManagement Plans, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, the Ohio WaterResource Inventory (305[b] report), the 303[d] list of impaired and threatenedwaters, and virtually any program where surface water quality is a concern. Figure4 outlines the major Ohio EPA programs that are supported by the basinassessment process.

Functional support provided by individual basin assessments for specific waterquality management activities is summarized in Figure 5. These include the

30


support of the 305(b) reportingprocess, TMDLs/303(d) listing,revising water quality standards (i.e.,use designations, criteriarefinements and modifications), andNPDES permit support. Support isalso provided for other programsincluding site-specific 404/401reviews, 319 projects, andenforcement actions. A positiveconsequence of this type ofsustained, routine, and standardizedfunctional program support is adatabase and information resourcewhich supports the ongoing waterquality management effort in theaggregate (Figure 6). This includes

Functional Support Provided by Individual Basin Assessments

Individual Basin

AssessmentWatershed

Specific Issues

PSD Section 1

Waterbody System (305b)

WQS/Use Attainability

Analyses

NPDES Permits

305b Report Statistics

303d List of Impaired/Threat-

ened Waters

Annual WQS Rulemaking

Final PSD/Fact Sheets

•RAPs•Local efforts•319 projects•401 certs.•enforcement cases

•problem discovery

•Special Investigations

Ohio 2001 Goals

Tracking

Figure 5. Functional water quality program supportprovided by the five-year basin assessment processemphasizing direct support of the 305(b) report,TMDL/303(d) listing process, water qualitystandards revisions, and water quality permitsupport documents in support of NPDES permitreissuance.

the development of new andimproved assessment tools,improved and refined criteria,indicators development and use,concepts, policies, and rules. Thecritical concept is that by doing thelevel of monitoring and assessmentthat is required by the intensivebasin approach, the basicinformational infrastructure neededto support the entire water qualitymanagement program is in placewhen the need for such support isrealized. This demonstrates howthis type of sustained

Functional Support Provided Collectively by Basin Assessments

Program Development

Regional/Statewide

Applications

• RAPs• Trends• Local efforts• NAWQA/EMAP• Watersheds• IWI "ground

truthing"

• Biological Criteria• Response Signa-

tures• Environmental

Indicators• Refined &

Validated WQC• Reference WQ

& sediment• Ecoregions/Sub-

regions

Policy Development

• Antidegradation• NPDES (WET, CSOs,

stormwater)• 401 Certification• Stream Protection• Nutrient controls• Overall policy

effectiveness• Refined WQS Uses

The ongoing accumulation of information across spatial and temporal scales

Figure 6. Functional water quality programsupport provided by the five-year basinassessment process emphasizing collectivesupport for components of the overall waterquality management process including specificprograms and the development of tools, criteria,concepts, procedures, policy, and rules.

approach isinherently anticipatory. Anticipatory monitoring andassessment is essential tomaintaining and improving the

31


overall water quality management process.

2.2 Water Quality StandardsWater quality standards are codified in Chapter 3745-1 of the OhioAdministrative Code to establish minimum water quality requirements for allsurface waters of the State. The purpose of WQS are to protect public health andwelfare and to enhance, improve and maintain water quality as provided under thelaws of the State of Ohio (ORC 6111.041) and the federal Clean Water Act. TheOhio WQS consist of designated uses and chemical, physical, and biological criteriadesigned to represent measurable properties of the environment that are consistentwith the goals specified by each use designation. Use designations consist of twobroad groups, aquatic life and non-aquatic life uses.

Designated Aquatic Life UsesIn applications of the Ohio WQS to the management of water resource issues inOhio’s rivers and streams, the aquatic life use criteria frequently result in the moststringent protection and restoration requirements, hence their emphasis inbiological and water quality reports. Also, an emphasis on protecting for aquaticlife generally results in water quality suitable for all uses. The five different aquaticlife uses currently defined in the Ohio WQS are described as follows:

1) Warmwater Habitat (WWH) - this use designation defines the “typical”warmwater assemblage of aquatic organisms for Ohio rivers and streams; this userepresents the principal restoration target for the majority of water resource managementefforts in Ohio.

2) Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) - this use designation is reserved forwaters which support “unusual and exceptional” assemblages of aquaticorganisms which are characterized by a high diversity of species, particularlythose which are highly intolerant and/or rare, threatened, endangered, or specialstatus (i.e., declining species); this designation represents a protection goal for waterresource management efforts dealing with Ohio’s best water resources.

3) Coldwater Habitat (CWH) - this use is intended for waters which supportassemblages of cold water organisms and/or those which are stocked withsalmonids with the intent of providing a put-and-take fishery on a year round

32


basis which is further sanctioned by the Ohio DNR, Division of Wildlife; thisuse should not be confused with the Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) usewhich applies to the Lake Erie tributaries which support periodic “runs” ofsalmonids during the spring, summer, and/or fall.

4) Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) - this use applies to streams and riverswhich have been subjected to extensive, maintained, and essentially permanenthydromodifications such that the biocriteria for the WWH use are notattainable and where the activities have been sanctioned and permitted by state or federallaw; the representative aquatic assemblages are generally composed of specieswhich are tolerant to low dissolved oxygen, silt, nutrient enrichment, and poorquality habitat.

5) Limited Resource Water (LRW) - this use applies to small streams (usually <3 mi.2drainage area) and other water courses which have been irretrievably altered tothe extent that no appreciable assemblage of aquatic life can be supported; suchwaterways generally include small streams in extensively urbanized areas, thosewhich lie in watersheds with extensive drainage modifications, those whichcompletely lack water on a recurring annual basis (i.e., true ephemeral streams),or other irretrievably altered waterways.

Chemical, physical, and/or biological criteria are generally assigned to each usedesignation in accordance with the broad goals defined by each. As such thesystem of use designations employed in the Ohio WQS constitutes a “tiered”approach in that varying and graduated levels of protection are provided by each. This hierarchy is especially apparent for parameters such as dissolved oxygen,ammonia-nitrogen, temperature, and the biological criteria (Figure 7). For otherparameters such as heavy metals, the technology to construct an equally graduatedset of criteria has been lacking, thus the same water quality criteria may apply totwo or three different use designations. However, with the adoption of dissolvedmetals criteria as a result of the GLWQG, “equivalency” with a tiered system ofcriteria for metals is effectively achieved whenever the biocriteria derived totalrecoverable thresholds (Ohio EPA 1997a) are used to develop the wasteloadallocation.

33


Ohio Water Quality Standards: Non-Aquatic Life UsesIn addition to assessing the appropriateness and status of aquatic life uses, eachbiological and water quality survey also addresses non-aquatic life uses such as

recreation, water supply, andhuman health concerns asappropriate. The

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYLOW HIGH

Index Value(IBI, ICI)

Max.

Min.

ExceptionalWarmwater

Habitat (EWH)

WarmwaterHabitat (WWH)

ModifiedWarmwater

Habitat (MWH)

LimitedResourceWaters (LRW)

"Exceptional"

"Good"

"Very Poor"

"Good-Fair"

"Fair-Poor"

"Poor"

Quality Gradient of Aquatic Life Uses and Narrative Descriptions of Biological Community Condition

"Very Good"

Figure 7. Graphical depiction of the system of tiered aquaticlife uses in the Ohio WQS against a gradient ofenvironmental quality (“biological integrity”) and the scaleof measurement (“biological criteria”).

recreationuses most applicable to riversand streams are the PrimaryContact Recreation (PCR)and Secondary ContactRecreation (SCR) uses. Thecriterion for designating thePCR use is simply having awater depth of at least onemeter over an area of at least100 square feet or wherecanoeing is a feasible activity.If a water body is too smalland shallow to meet eithercriterion the SCR use applies.The attainment status ofPCR and SCR is determined

using bacterial indicators (e.g., fecal coliforms, E. coli) and the criteria for each arespecified in the Ohio WQS.

Water supply uses include Public Water Supply (PWS), Agricultural Water Supply(AWS), and Industrial Water Supply (IWS). Public Water Supplies are simplydefined as segments within 500 yards of a potable water supply or food processingindustry intake (subject to changes in the SWAP program; see subsection 2.9). The Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) and Industrial Water Supply (IWS) usedesignations generally apply to all waters unless it can be clearly shown that theyare not applicable. An example of this would be an urban area where livestockwatering or pasturing does not take place, thus the AWS use would be removedafter a use attainability analysis. Chemical criteria are specified in the Ohio WQSfor each use and attainment status is based primarily on chemical-specificindicators. Human health concerns are additionally addressed with fish tissue data,

34


but any consumption advisories are issued by the Ohio Department of Health aredetailed in other documents.

2.3 Permitting, Enforcement, and ComplianceThe issuance of NPDES permits is one of the most important surface water qualitymanagement programs in terms of ability to effect pollution control and terms ofresources required to operate a statewide program. Major activities include permitissuance and reissuance, monitoring compliance, performing inspections, andtaking enforcement actions when this is deemed necessary. Monitoring andassessment supports all of these functions as follows:

1) Validation and revision, if necessary, of designated uses and anitdegradationtiers thereby assuring that the appropriate water quality and biologicalcriteria are used in the development of water quality based effluent limitsand assessment of compliance both in the effluent and the receiving waters;

2) Validation and revision, if necessary, of water quality criteria used to developa wasteload allocation (WLA) based on reviews of existing toxicologicalinformation, regional reference data and information, and biological criteriarelationships on a statewide or regional basis;

3) Demonstration of the extent and severity of impairment, if any, in theimmediate receiving waters including mixing zone, near field , and far fieldeffects; such information in conjunction with other environmental indicatorsprovides reasonable estimates of associated cause and effect relationships;and,

4) Demonstrating the overall effectiveness of the aggregate approach topermitting, compliance, and enforcement in terms of resource quality andtrends in that quality on a local, regional, and statewide basis.

NPDES Permit ProgramWhenever a municipality, industry, or other entity wishes to discharge water to asurface water of the State, they must first obtain a permit from the Ohio EPADivision of Surface Water (DSW). This permit is called a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits regulate

35


wastewater discharges by limiting the quantities of pollutants to be discharged andimposing monitoring requirements and other conditions. The limits and/orrequirements in the permit help ensure compliance with the Ohio Water QualityStandards and federal regulations, all of which were written to protect public healthand the aquatic environment.

There are two types of NPDES permits; individual and general. An individualNPDES permit is unique to each facility. The limitations and requirements in anindividual permit are based on the facility's operations, type and amount ofdischarge, and receiving stream, among other factors.

NPDES Permit Reissuance

2. REVISIONS TO WQS (Use designations, site-specific criteria)

WATER QUALITY PERMIT SUPPORT DOCUMENT (WQPSD; Summary of impact assessment &

wasteload allocation)

Other Useable

DataWASTELOAD

ALLOCATION PROCESS (Chemical-specific, WET,

Anti-degradation)

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (Detailed summary of analysis

& status/trends throughout watershed)

Ohio EPA Assessment& Reporting Process:NPDES Permit Support

1. USE ATTAINMENT STATUS (Miles & severity of impairment; associated causes, sources)

PERMIT STAFF

3. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS (Problem discovery, actions needed, follow-up investigations)

Figure 8. Process for completing water quality permit supportdocuments (PSD) in support of NPDES permit issuanceand reissuance.

Permit Support DocumentsA permit support document(PSD) is a summary of areceiving water impactassessment based on abiosurvey and the wasteloadallocation. The threesections which comprise aPSD include Section 1:Impact on ReceivingWaters, Section 2: Wasteload AllocationModelling, and Section 3:Conclusions. For somepermit issues the PSD maybe comprised of Section 2

only where a relevant assessment of the receiving water is lacking. Section 1 iscompleted for approximately one-half of the PSDs produced in a year. Theavailability of Section 1 information is addressed ahead of permit drafting andreissuance as part of the basin survey planning and prioritization process.

Monitoring and assessment information is a vital contribution to the PSD process,both for the receiving water impact assessment and the wastelaod allocation. Theprocess and flow of information is depicted in Figure 8. The recommendations inthe PSD are used by the permit writer in drafting a NPDES permit for issuance or

36


reissuance.

Enforcement SupportMonitoring and assessment for enforcement support can take place in a number ofdifferent ways and designs from the collection of grab effluent and ambient samplesover a few hours or days to longer term investigations involving biological, habitat,and water quality sampling over many months or years. However, the purposeremains the same, to document the extent and severity of any violations of permitterms and conditions and the Ohio WQS. There are many recent and ongoingexamples of the latter of which the ongoing effort to document the recovery ofLeading Creek from the Ohio Coal Co. Meigs Mine #31 spill of 1994 andcompliance with the recovery endpoints established (Ohio EPA 1995).

Compliance Evaluation and SupportCompliance monitoring and evaluation include the following objectives:

• determine compliance with NPDES permit terms and conditions;• validation of monthly operating reports submitted by permit holders; and,• information base for supporting enforcement actions.

Data submitted by permitted entities is included in a monthly operating report(MOR) and is entered into the Surface Water Information Management System(SWIMS) which only recently replaced the Liquid Effluent Analysis ProcessingSystem (LEAPS). U.S. EPA coordinates a reference sample quality assuranceprogram for all major discharges. Major and significant minor permits have thehighest priority for compliance sampling and inspections. Activities of thecompliance monitoring program include review and evaluation of MORs,compliance evaluation inspections (CEI), compliance sampling inspections (CSI),performance audit inspections (PAI), toxics sampling inspections (TSI), diagnosticinspections (DI), and legal support inspections (LSI).

DSW also operates a significant program to provide direct technical assistance tomunicipalities in an effort to achieve long term compliance. The MunicipalAssistance Program is a cooperative effort between Ohio EPA and municipalitiesto bring wastewater treatment plants into compliance and maintain compliance. In this program Ohio EPA serves as a facilitator, providing innovative and cost-

37


effective methods of improving plant performance and is directed at non-capitalimprovements.

2.4 Section 305(b) Reporting ProcessWithin DSW, EAU is responsible for completion of the section 305(b) report withsupport provided via the Five Year Basin Approach by other sections and units. This report is one of several possible outcomes of the Five-Year Basin Approach

Ohio Water Resource Inventory

(305b Report)

STAFF COMPLETE WBS ASSESSMENTS (Determine associated causes & sources of

impairment and severity of impacts)

DATA AGGREGATION (Miles of rivers & streams which attain or do not attain biocriteria and other criteria; associated

causes & sources are compiled)

Other Useable

DataDATA ENTRY TO OHIO EPA WATER BODY SYSTEM (WBS)

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (Detailed summary of analysis

& status/trends throughout watershed)

Ohio EPA Assessment& Reporting Process:305b Reporting Process

303(d) List/TMDLs

Figure 9. Process for completing the Ohio WaterResource Inventory (305[b] Report).

(Figures 4 and 5). The issuesof planning, sampling, dataquality objectives, QA/QC, andassessment of results isaddressed via the Five-YearBasin Approach process.

The Ohio Water ResourceInventory (305[b] report) isproduced biennially by DSW. The report consists of asummary and fact sheets, fourvolumes (rivers & streams, fishcontaminants, lakes, andground water), and anappendix containing various

required lists and a compilation of the Waterbody System (WBS). The WBS is anelectronic database which contains the basic assessment information for specificwaterbody segments which is aggregated in different ways to produce the textportions of the 305(b) report. The WBS is updated on an annual basis.

The 305(b) reporting process emanates from the basin approach and alliedtechnical assessment process (Figure 9). The basin assessment information is usedto complete WBS work sheets on which various states of impairment and threatsare delineated along with associated causes and sources using codes established byU.S. EPA (Figure 10a). A brief narrative summary of the results within eachwaterbody segment is also produced and contained within the WBS database(Figure 10b). The WBS summaries are reviewed and approved by the EAUmanager prior to entry into the WBS database which is part of Ohio ECOS.

38


Entries are then proofread for accuracy.

The 305(b) process provides the basic information on which progress towardsvarious Clean Water Act goals is ascertained. A forecast analysis is used to bothtrack past progress in restoring impaired designated uses and project futureconditions. This information has been used to set strategic goals for the waterprograms and is a focus of strategic planning for the water quality managementprocess.

2.5 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)/Section 303(d) ListingOne of the more important outcomes of the 305(b) assessment process is thecompilation of the section 303(d) list of impaired waters. This list is essentially aproduct of the 305(b) impaired and threatened waters gained from the WBS. Theseverity of the impairment is also expressed when this is relevant and the body ofinformation is then available for use in priority rankings and TMDL developmentscheduling. The 303(d) list is updated as required by U.S. EPA and incorporatesnew information via the Five-Year Basin Approach. The approach was changed in1999 moving basin surveys two years in advance of TMDL development. This wasdone to allow more time to revise the 303(d) list based on the findings of the basinassessment and to permit TMDL specific field work to take place one year inadvance of TMDL development.

Ohio EPA committed to a 15-year TMDL development process in 1998. Based onthe 303(d) list at that time, the schedule was organized by watershed unit and incoordination with the Five-Year Basin Approach (Figure 11). Ohio EPA haschartered an internal workgroup to assess how the Agency might address andcomply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements of the CleanWater Act. To accomplish this task the Ohio EPA TMDL Workgroup has beendivided into subteams. Each subteam has been asked to examine a specific part ofthe TMDL process. The subteams are looking at listing, restoration targetdevelopment, implementation of measures to achieve the restoration targets, andvalidation that achievement of restoration targets has occurred.A three phasedapproach has been devised to accomplish the goals of the workgroup. Phase onewas dedicated to taking an inventory of tools that currently exist and can be used to

39

River Code: 20-001 River Segment: Black River, RM 15.65 to mouth

Waterbody ID#: OH86 2 URM: 15.65 LRM: 0.00 Length: Initials:

Aquatic Life Use: WWH Date of Assessment: (MM/YY): ___/___

Dates of Data Collection: (MM/YY) ___/___ to ___/___

15.65

Assessment Types:

Uses:

Aquatic Life:

Supported ThreatenedPartial

SupportNon-

SupportNot

Attainable Unassessed

Miles:

Significant Aquatic Contamination:

Causes (w/Magnitude) of Partial or Non Support:

Sources (w/Magnitude) of Partial or Non Support:

4

8

Organics (Effluent)

Pesticides (Effluent)

12

14

15

16

17

Metals (Effluent)

Oth. Inorganics (Effluent)

Toxicity Testing (Water Column)

Toxicity Testing (Sediment)

Code: Pollutant

Toxicity Testing(Effluent)

Estimate of Miles of SegmentCovered by Toxic Monitoring:

Recreation:

BiologicalIntegrityNarrative:

*

FISH: BUG: CHEM:

Date Printed:03/31/99

Excellent Good: Fair: Poor: Very Poor:

Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles

Source/Mag - Miles Source/Mag - Miles Source/Mag - Miles Source/Mag - Miles Source/Mag - MilesMajor Categ.

Subcategory

Subcategory

Subcategory

Toxic Parameters Measured (That May NotBe Electonically Accessible at EAU)

Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles Cause/Mag - Miles

TYPES OF DATA AVAILABLE:

RJM

04 9907 97 10 97

X X X

3.7 4.2 7.7

3.7 4.2 0.9 6.8

0900 H 7.7 1200 H 11.9 2400 M 6.0

0000 H 11.90210 H 7.70400 H 11.9

0000 M 6.00210 M 6.00110 M 6.00400 M 6.0

xxxxxxxxxxx

Y 04/99

x

x

xx

5.0

Figure 10a. Front page of a waterbody system (WBS) work sheet which is completed by the staffmaking the assessment and in accordance with the process outline in Figure 9. Thisinformation is recorded in the WBS and used to develop 305(b) statistics and products.

40

Narrative Summary/Additional InformationAre you recommending an Aquatic Life Usechange? - YES - NONew Use LRW MWH WWH EWH

Other:_______

If a portion of the segment is currently meetingits use, but you feel that this use is threatened,briefly describe this threat:

Is any of the impact observed caused bypriority organic pollutants:? - YES - NOIf so briefly describe the source of thesepollutants and the extent of the problem:

Trend in the segment (more than one year ofdata)Improving Stable Declining

Does this site need future monitoring? - YES - NO

Was data from outside of Ohio EPA used? - YES - NO

List Sources:

Signficant Point Sources Present in Segment:NPDES Name

Signficant Nonpoint Sources in Segment:Name Description

Summary Narrative Description of Status/Causes/Sources in Segment [If you can’t fit itin this box, then you’ve written too much!]

x

x

Historic and residual PAH con-tamination from coking facilitiesin the lower river

x

xDr. Paul Bauman, USGS/OSUDr. Allan Burton, Wright State U.

3PD00034 City of Elyria WWTP3ID00028 USS/Kobe Steel3PE00005 City of Lorain Eastside WWTTP

USS Kobe Slag PilesD2 Landfill

Pollutant loadings in the lacustrineportion of the river contribute toanoxia. Residual and currentsources of toxics including metalsand PAHs continue to impair aqua-tic life in the Black River.

CSOs and SSOs in Elyria contributeto the impairment in the freeflowing section of the mainstem,as well as contribute organic load-ing to the lacustrine portion.

Figure 10b. Back page of a waterbody system (WBS) work sheet which is completed by the staffmaking the assessment and in accordance with the process outline in Figure 9. This informationsupplements the coding on the front side and is entered into the WBS as important supportinginformation.

41


19992000200120022003

TMDL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: 1999 - 2013

2004200520062007200820092010201120122013not scheduled/status unknown

Figure 11. Schedule for development of TMDLs developed by Ohio EPA in1998 showing subbasins and watersheds by TMDL year. Five-yearbasin and TMDL field work takes place two and one years prior.

list, develop, implement, and validate the TMDL process in Ohio. Phase two hasinvolved bench marking with other regulatory agencies, watershed projects,

remedial actionprograms, as wellas to draw oninternal staffexperience todocument howthe TMDLprocess could beimplemented inOhio. Theobjective of phasetwo is to reporton “what couldbe” with respectto each of theindividualelements of theTMDL process. To accomplishthis task theworkgroupdivided into

subteams. Each subteam examined a specific part of the TMDL process: listing,restoration target development, implementation of measures to achieve therestoration targets, and validation that achievement of restoration targets hasoccurred. In developing a list of options the agency may wish to pursue,constraints such as a current lack of statutory authority, agency resources, etc.have not yet been considered. The third and final phase will focus on developingrecommendations for Ohio EPA management on how the TMDL requirements ofthe Clean Water Act should be met in Ohio.

The monitoring and assessment needs of the TMDL process are in line with theFive-Year Basin Approach and the continuing development of environmentalindicators. Regarding the latter, the development of indicators to measure interim

42


progress towards meeting TMDL benchmarks is being emphasized.

2.6 401 Water Quality Certification ProcessAny activity that results in the discharge of dredged or fill material into the watersof the U.S., regardless of whether on private or public property, must obtain aSection 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and a Section401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the state, the latter of which isadministered by DSW. Projects which may lead to more than de minimis impactsgenerally require a site-specific review and may further require monitoring andassessment information to be collected and/or evaluated. In many cases, site-specific assessments consist of a habitat assessment up to biological assessment instreams and rivers and wetlands. Standard Ohio EPA methods are followed in eachcase.

2.7 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management/WatershedsThe Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) is the designated statewater quality management agency responsible for administering the Clean WaterAct (CWA) Section 319 program in Ohio. In a broad context, NPS pollutioncontrol is a part of the Ohio EPA surface water quality program. However, NPSpollution control is administered as a distinct program because of the manner inwhich the federal CWA addresses the issue. Under CWA Section 319, the OhioNPS Program emphasizes education, technical assistance, financial incentives andvoluntary actions as opposed to regulatory mandates or permits. The success of theOhio NPS Program to date is attributed to the fact that it is a program based oninnovation, voluntary compliance, is geographically focused and involves amultitude of local, state and federal agencies working toward a common waterquality goal.

Nonpoint Source AssessmentThroughout Ohio, federal, State and local agencies are implementing NPS pollutioncontrol projects. The majority of these projects are implemented at the local levelwith technical support from federal and state agencies. These projects represent aninvestment of approximately $22 million of federal, state and local funds being usedto address NPS water quality issues. Each year, DSW applies for and receives CWASection 319 funding from U.S. EPA for NPS implementation and demonstrationprojects in Ohio. Education, innovation, cost-sharing and voluntary compliance

43


with locally developed watershed management plans are the cornerstones of Ohio'sNPS program.

The Ohio NPS program relies heavily on watershed management plans to addresswater quality problems. These plans emphasize: identification of the nature, extent,and cause of water quality problems; development of an implementation plan;implementation of BMPs; education and evaluation. The watershed managementplans are developed locally with input and support from Ohio EPA, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources (ODNR), Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) and other agencies.

Ohio EPA's role in NPS pollution control is:

1) identify adverse water resource impacts and threats caused by NPSpollution;

2) document water resource improvements resulting from implementation ofBMPs;

3) provide education and financial incentives to implement NPS pollutioncontrols;

4) sustain a viable voluntary program for managing NPS water qualityproblems;

5) maintain effective communication and coordination with all agencies, groupsand individuals interested in NPS pollution controls; and,

6) secure and administer available federal funds and encourage local efforts inwatershed management.

DSW is responsible for producing and updating the Ohio Nonpoint SourceAssessment which identifies waters that are impaired and/or impacted by nonpointsources. By including impacted waters, the list of waters becomes more inclusivethan that identified by the Ohio Water Resource Inventory or the 303(d) list.

Unified Watershed AssessmentsTo further efforts to protect and restore water resources, the U.S. EPAAdministrator and the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with several otheragencies developed the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP). The CWAP wascompleted in February, 1998 to promote a collaborative effort on the part of

44


federal, state, tribal, and local governments, the public and private sectors torestore and sustain the health of the nations water resources. A key component of

Watershed Categories Defined forUnified Watershed Assessments

Category 1) Watersheds in Need ofRestoration(watersheds not meeting, orfacing imminent threat of notmeeting, clean water or othernatural resource goals)

Category 2) Watersheds Meeting Goals,including those Needing Actionto Sustain Water Quality(watersheds meeting clean waterand other natural resource goalsbut in need of preventionmeasures to sustain water quality)

Category 3) Watersheds with

Pristine/Sensitive AquaticSystem Conditions on landsAdministered by Federal, Stateor Tribal Governments(watersheds with pristine/sensitiveaquatic system conditions butrequire protection measures, andare on federal, state, or triballands)

Category 4) Watersheds where moreinformation is needed to assessconditions

Table 2. Criteria for categorizing watershedsidentified by the Unified WatershedAssessment process.

the CWAP is the creation of UnifiedWatershed Assessments (UWA) byeach state. The UWA compilesexisting assessment efforts on thecondition of water resources for thepurpose of developing commonpriorities for watershed restoration andprotection. The UWA emphasizesbroad consultation with environmentaland natural resource agencies andothers in the development of the UWAand incorporates both “clean water andnatural resource goals”.

Unified Watershed Assessments shouldcomplete two basic tasks: 1) place allwatersheds in the State in one of fourcategories (Table 2); and, 2) definewatershed restoration priorities anddevelop watershed restoration actionstrategies. The development of theOhio UWA was guided by the OhioNatural Resources CoordinatingCommittee (ONRCC). The ONRCC iscomprised of representatives fromfederal, State and regional agenciesincluding the U.S. Forest Service,Geological Survey, National ParkService, Natural ResourcesConservation Service, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Office of SurfaceMining, the Ohio Departments of

Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Health, the Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. Through a

45


series of meetings held from July through September 1998, the ONRCC suggestedcriteria for categorization and prioritization of watersheds for the UWA. Additional input and comment on the UWA was sought from the State TechnicalCommittee of the NRCS.

The criteria used to determine which category a watershed is placed are: 1) thepercentage of assessed river and stream miles within a watershed; and, 2) thepercentage of assessed miles that are threatened, partially attaining, or notattaining the designated aquatic life use. As such the UWA process relies heavilyon the Ohio EPA waterbody system used to compile the 305(b) report, which is anoutcome of the Five-Year Basin Approach. Designated uses are assigned in theOhio Water Quality Standards. These uses include aquatic life, public watersupply, agricultural water supply, industrial water supply and recreation. Rivers,streams and lakes are periodically assessed as to whether they are supporting thesebeneficial uses. In reporting on attainment of water quality standards, Ohio EPAemphasizes aquatic life use attainment because: 1) aquatic life criteria frequentlyresult in the most stringent requirements compared to those for the other usecategories, (i.e., protecting for aquatic life uses should assure the protection ofother uses); 2) aquatic life uses apply to virtually every Ohio waterbody and thediverse criteria (conventional substances, nutrients, toxics, habitat, physical, andbiological factors) apply to all water resource management issues; 3) aquatic lifeuses and the accompanying chemical, physical and biological criteria provide acomprehensive and accurate ecosystem perspective toward water resourcemanagement; and 4) the existence of an extensive and comprehensive database ofaquatic life, physical habitat, water chemistry, sediment, and effluent data, most ofwhich is readily accessible via electronic databases. In addition to assessing useattainment, this array of data is used to ascribe causes and sources of impairmentof surface waters.

Assessed waters are categorized as either fully attaining, fully attaining butthreatened, partially attaining, or not attaining the aquatic life use. The fullyattaining, but threatened category means that the assessed waters are meeting allchemical and biological standards but that changes in land uses and/or water usesthreaten to degrade the quality of the resource. The specific percentages for eachcategory are listed below.

46


Category 1: Watersheds in Need of RestorationWatersheds where 20 percent or more of the river and stream miles have beenassessed, and where 10 percent or more of assessed waters are not attaining,threatened, or partially attaining the aquatic life use designations.

Category 2: Watersheds Meeting Goals, including those Needing Action to Sustain WaterQualityWatersheds where 20 percent or more of the river and stream miles have beenassessed, and where less than 10 percent of assessed waters are not attaining,threatened, or partially attaining the aquatic life use designations.

Category 3: Watersheds with pristine/sensitive aquatic system conditions on federal, state, ortribal landsWatersheds where 20 percent or more of the river and stream miles have beenassessed and where less than 10 percent of assessed waters are not attaining,threatened, or partially attaining the aquatic life use designations (No category threewatersheds have been identified for Ohio.)

Category 4: Watersheds where more information is needed to assess conditionsWatersheds where less than 20 percent of the rivers and streams have beenassessed.

Two key objectives of the UWA are to: 1) integrate human health, water quality,and natural resource goals into the restoration prioritization process; and, 2) identify watersheds where common priorities and opportunities exist for actionsby federal, State and local governments, as well as local stakeholders. Humanhealth, water quality, and natural resource goals are incorporated into thewatershed prioritization process through measures of the extent and severity ofimpairment to aquatic life, fish consumption, and recreational uses in thewatershed; identification of watersheds where elevated levels of nitrates orpesticides have been detected at public water supply surface intakes, identificationof the predominant sources of impairment in the watershed; and measures ofphysical and habitat features of watershed that can facilitate recovery of aquaticlife.

47


Source Water Protection ProgramThe Source Water Assessment and Protection program (SWAP) is a recent andinnovative effort to protect Ohio’s streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwaters that are used as public water supplies from future contamination. TheSWAP program will identify drinking water protection areas and provideinformation about how to reduce the potential for contaminating waters withinthose areas. The goal of the program is to ensure the long-term availability of anabundant supply of safe drinking water for the citizens of Ohio.

As required under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, theproposed SWAP program will address all legally designated public water supplysystems. These are facilities that provide drinking water to the public, whetherfrom an underground well or spring, or, from a surface water such as a stream, lake,reservoir, or river. The program does not address individual residential wells orcisterns. In Ohio, there are approximately 6,100 public water systems. More than5,800 of these utilize ground water. While only 317 systems use surface water, anumber of them -- such as those in Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, and Toledo --serve large populations. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996require source water assessments for all public water systems in the United States. U.S. EPA expects all States to complete assessments for all public water systems bythe year 2004.

Under the SWAP program, assessments of source water areas will be conducted forboth ground and surface sources of drinking water. Information gathered throughthese assessments will then be used to direct protection and remediation activitiesas needed. Essentially, the program will consist of four steps:

1) Delineation of the protection area;

2) Inventory of the facilities and land uses within the protection area thatcould contaminate the drinking water;

3) Susceptibility analysis which determines the likelihood that the source watercould become contaminated; and

4) Implementation of protection activities to avoid contamination of the

48


surface water body or aquifer, or to reduce the levels of existingcontaminants.

The first three steps of this process involve identifying and assessing the SWAParea of a public water system’s drinking water supply. Ohio EPA proposes toconduct an additional step, called a “resource characterization”, which involvescollecting the regional and site-specific hydrogeologic information that is necessaryto: a) adequately delineate SWAP areas for ground water systems; b) determinethe susceptibility of an aquifer or watershed; and, c) identify areas of an aquifer orwatershed that require special attention. Numerous parameters, including aquiferporosity, hydraulic conductivity, ground water levels, pumping rates, and welldepths, will be entered into a database that will be used by staff who arecompleting other portions of the assessment. Ground water pollution potentialmaps (DRASTIC maps) and aquifer maps created by the Ohio Department ofNatural resources will also be used . For ground water systems, resourcecharacterization will be the first step in the assessment process, because theinformation is critical for delineating the SWAP areas. For surface water systems,the SWAP area will be delineated first, then a resource characterization will becompleted for the SWAP area.

The process for delineating the boundaries of the source water protection areas willdiffer for ground and surface waters. For ground waters, the delineation will bebased on a five-year capture zone -- the SWAP area will be the area from whichground water flows into a well within five years. Once the outer border of theSWAP area is delineated, a smaller area within that area -- the inner managementzone -- will also be delineated, based on the one-year capture zone. Capture zonescan be calculated from various equations and ground water flow models.

The delineation of surface water areas will be based on a combination of existingwatershed boundaries, including USGS hydrologic unit maps, and somemodifications to them. Several smaller areas within the SWAP area -- theemergency management zone and the corridor management zone -- will bedelineated and targeted for specific inventory and protection activities. A resourcecharacterization then will be conducted to gain an understanding of the physical,biological, chemical, and hydrological characteristics of the SWAP watershed. Factors such as the potential for surface runoff and the ease of transport of surface

49


runoff to the source water in the SWAP watershed will be used in conducting theresource characterization. Biological and chemical water quality data will not onlyreveal source waters that are already contaminated, but will provide direction forconducting future monitoring and selection of appropriate protection activities.

Maps of each stream, river, lake, reservoir, or aquifer supplying the drinking water--and its surrounding protection area -- will be created by Ohio EPA. The Agencymay seek help in completing these assessments from other agencies,subcontractors, or a combination of the two.

Once a public water system SWAP area is identified, the next step is to inventoryand locate on a map any known potential sources of pollution within that area thatmight cause drinking water contamination. Ohio EPA will provide a map of theSWAP area to the public water supplier showing the boundaries of the SWAPArea and special management areas within the SWAP, the location of the publicwater wells or intake, and the locations of any potentially significant contaminantsources that already are entered in Ohio EPA’s databases. Ohio EPA also willprovide forms and checklists to assist public water suppliers in inventorying thepotential contaminant sources in their SWAP areas. The inventory informationcan be obtained by a variety of methods, including visual surveys, mailed surveys,phone surveys, and site visits. Also, sites located on Ohio EPA’s initial maps needto be verified. Since local residents are more familiar with their environs, OhioEPA will ask local water suppliers, citizens, government officials and employees,and those who are concerned with their drinking water quality to work together toverify locations and complete the inventory. Direct technical assistance will beprovided by Ohio EPA and/or its contractors, as needed.

Because the SWAP areas for surface water systems may be thousands of squaremiles, local inventory efforts will be expected primarily in the designatedmanagement areas, and any sub-watersheds that are subsequently designated. However, the initial maps provided by Ohio EPA will include the locations ofknown potentially significant contaminant sources throughout the entire SWAParea.

Ohio EPA will then determine the likelihood that the drinking water in each sourcewater protection area could become contaminated—a process called “susceptibility

50


analysis.” Once the assessment is completed, it will be written up in a report thatwill include: 1) a description of the hydrogeologic setting; 2) identification ofpotentially significant contaminant sources; 3) an assessment of existing aquifer orwater resource quality; and, 4) suggested protective actions. These reports will bemade available to the public in various formats, including the Ohio EPA web page. Public water systems will also be required to share with their consumers at least asummary of the information on their own Source Water Protection areas.

The fourth step is perhaps the most important part of the SWAP program, wherepreventive steps will be taken to protect source waters. Information contained inthe final SWAP report will provide local water supply operators and otherstakeholders with suggested protection activities. This report will be sent directlyto public water suppliers and will be made available in various formats throughOhio EPA’s Web page, through copies sent to local libraries, and upon request.

Protective actions can be voluntary or mandated by a local authority, such as themunicipality, township, county, water-and-sewer district, etc. Ohio EPAanticipates that protective actions in many SWAP areas will consist primarily ofeducation and the encouragement of voluntary Best Management Practices. This isespecially true for the state’s 4,000 or so noncommunity systems, which have littleor no authority over activities occurring beyond the supplier’s own property lines. However, some communities may decide to pass ordinances or zoning that enablesthe local officials to protect and/or clean up areas. In some cases, preventivemeasures may consist of the municipality buying up undeveloped land around astream or well field so that it can control the kinds of activities that take placethere. In other cases, prevention will depend on better enforcement of state andlocal environmental regulations at facilities subject to such regulations. The kindsof preventive measures that may be taken, and the degree to which they areneeded, will depend largely on the number and types of contaminant sources in thesource water protection area and susceptibility analysis. In any case, preventivemeasures are expected to be initiated and led by the affected community, with technicalassistance from Ohio EPA. While some protective measures may be easilyimplemented, it may take many years to establish effective pollution preventionprograms.

For public water systems with large SWAP areas that cross many jurisdictions and

51


have multiple concerns, a concerted planning effort among stakeholders may be themost effective approach to implementing protection activities. Ohio EPA willprovide assistance to these efforts via the Wellhead Protection Program for groundwater systems and the Watershed Action Planning Approach for surface watersystems.

2.8 Hazardous Waste SitesThe Agency has a goal of cleaning up 400 sites by the year 2000 which DERR willhelp to achieve through a variety of mechanisms. We will significantly decrease theareas of contamination in Ohio by making available more efficient and flexibleways for interested parties to accomplish site cleanup. We plan to offer flexibilityin cleanup by making available a variety of types and combinations of cleanupoptions from voluntary action, emergency response, time critical and non-timecritical removal actions to fully detailed remedial cleanup actions so that the mostefficient environmentally protective option can be quickly and easily performed.This strategy includes combining our efforts with other divisions' efforts toeffectively use the geographic initiative and multi-media approach to achieve sitecleanup. Current sites undergoing cleanup will be factored into this philosophy andwill also benefit from a more enhanced and integrated cleanup program. Cleanupmechanisms and resources will be geared toward reducing the greatestenvironmental threats first.

Voluntary Action ProgramThe DERR Voluntary Action Program (VAP) will provide the opportunity for areasto be cleaned up and redeveloped (brownfields initiatives) with minimal agencyoversight. We intend to incorporate brownfields types of assessments in ourpreliminary assessment/site investigation grant with U.S. EPA. During 1996, theVAP will complete the second set of rules which deal with investigation andperformance standards for cleanup. A subsequent major strategy will consist ofconducting outreach activities to encourage maximum participation in theprogram by volunteers, professionals, and laboratories. Additionally, the Divisionwill refine coordination issues between Central Office and the District Offices toensure smooth implementation of the program and achieve proper balance withour enforcement program to move toward the Agency's goal of cleaning up 400sites by the year 2000. The VAP will work with other state agencies to develop andimplement financial tools and incentives as well as look for creative ways to make

52


the cleanup and redevelopment of "brownfields" sites an economic preference todevelopment in "greenfields." Over the next few years, we will need to monitor andevaluate the effectiveness of the program to identify areas that requirerule/legislative modifications or written guidance.

Monitoring and assessment activities conducted in connection with VAP sitesmust be overseen by a certified professional (CP). Cps must follow Ohio EPA andU.S. EPA methods and QA/QC procedures. Ohio EPA certifies CPs for such workincluding a bioassessment/biocriteria certification process.

Remedial Response ProgramThe Remedial Response Program has the cleanup goal of 400 sites by the year2000. The Division is continuing to make improvements in the technical areas ofthe cleanup program to streamline and accelerate site remediation efforts. As anexample, one area the Division will concentrate on is streamlining the riskassessment phase by providing guidance, training, and standardized risk assessmentprocedures and generic standards.

DSW provides direct technical expertise in the area of surface water assessmentsassociated with remedial investigations and risk assessments. These resources arelocated in EAU and are allies with the tools and methods used in the Five-YearBasin Approach. In addition, this provides the opportunity to explore newassessment tools in conjunction with the site-specific assessments.

Emergency Response and Special InvestigationsEmergency Response is a well established program that consistently provides 24-hour, 365 days/year statewide coverage for responding to accidental orunauthorized releases. Emergency Response maintains the computerized ReleaseReporting System which is the principal database for documenting spills. TheSpecial Investigations Program conducts criminal investigative work. Again,monitoring and assessment information is essential within these programs.

2.9 Comparative RiskComparative risk is a planning process that endeavors to analyze and assess therisks from environmental issues and ultimately rank the issues on the basis of therisks they pose. Comparative risk is based on the premise that there are limited

53


resources to deal with all of the environmental problems we face; therefore, weneed to focus those resources in a manner that will result in the greatest overallreduction of risk. The risks must be identified using science and public values, notone or the other, and the process of comparative risk is set up to do this. Withoutcomparative risk or some similar tool to bring available information into theenvironmental management arena, we may continue to respond to theenvironmental crisis of the day--syringes washed up on the shore, newly discoveredhazardous waste sites, or the reporting of a new toxic hazard.

The Ohio Comparative Risk Project is a citizen-based environmental planningproject that evaluates environmental problems in Ohio based on scientific evidenceand public values. The information is being used to develop an environmentalpriority list and strategies for policy makers and citizens to use in reducing risks. Phase 1 of the Project involved gathering scientific and public data aboutenvironmental issues in Ohio. Quantitative scientific data were obtained fromenvironmental professionals and published reports about environmental conditionsin the state. Data about the public's environmental concerns and priorities wereobtained from a number of outreach activities involving more than 20,000 Ohiocitizens. Phase 1 resulted in the Ohio State of the Environment Report, a 508-pagedocument published in December 1995. A 35-page companion report, Facts andFigures About Ohio's Environment, is also available. Ohio's results can be comparedto other states via the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project (SEGIP;Berquist et al. 1998). Phase 1 also resulted in a ranking of 45 potential threats toOhioans' health, environment and quality of life.

2.10 Lake Erie ProgramsLake Erie programs consist of Ohio EPA involvement in activities related to theLakewide Management Plan, Remedial Action Plans for the four areas of concern,and the activities of the Lake Erie Office. Monitoring and assessment activitiesconducted by Ohio EPA have historically been very limited in scope and this isreflected in the lack of definitive assessment information in the Ohio WaterResource Inventory (305[b] report). However, DSW has become involved inseveral initiatives which should address these deficiencies in the next 5-10 years.

RAP ProgramThere are four Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) in Ohio: Ashtabula River (USEPA),

54


Black River, Cuyahoga River, and Maumee River. Ohio EPA is responsible forensuring RAPs are implemented in Ohio. These areas are the State's most pollutedand environmentally impacted rivers which empty into Lake Erie. Ohio's RemedialAction Plan Program (GLIN) addresses the restoration of beneficial uses (GLIN) inOhio's four Lake Erie Areas of Concern (AOC) (GLIN). As requested in the GreatLakes Water Quality Agreement, (IJC) the RAPs take an ecosystem approach andincorporate active public involvement.

Year after year, the same locations were identified as the most contaminated areasaround the Great Lakes. The adoption and implementation of environmental lawsand regulations significantly reduced the discharge of pollutants, but these areascontinued to experience severe environmental degradation. In 1985, the WaterQuality Board of the International Joint Commission (IJC) recommended thedevelopment of comprehensive remedial action plans (RAPs) to concentrate on thecleanup and restoration of these areas. New, creative, innovative, collaborative andwide-reaching approaches would be needed to achieve this goal. The eight GreatLakes states and Ontario agreed to the challenge and Ohio EPA took the lead forthe program in Ohio.

Neither the State nor Federal Governments had sufficient resources, the historicalknowledge, or even the authorities to restore all the impairments identified. OhioEPA invited the local communities to become active participants in the decisionmaking involved with the RAPs. Initial public meetings on the RAP process andthe outstanding environmental problems in each AOC were held in 1987. At thosemeetings, the local communities showed a great interest in taking a strong role inrestoring their rivers.

Local committees have been created in each of the areas to coordinate themdevelopment and implementation of the RAP. Ohio EPA works with thesecommittees as an equal partner in the RAP process. The local committees havebeen built with the intention of obtaining representation from all of the localagencies, organizations, and unaffiliated citizens with an interest or a stake in riverremediation.

Each of Ohio's RAPs has been organized somewhat differently, depending on theunique characteristics of each AOC. These characteristics include: environmental

55


problems in the AOC, sources and causes of the problems, available resources -both technical and financial, political climate, public interest, and the volunteerbase.

The ecosystem approach and the public involvement requirements of the RAPprocess have allowed us to be as flexible and innovative as we need to be to restoreall beneficial uses to each AOC. With funding from U.S. EPA and the State, OhioEPA has been able to support a full-time coordinator for each RAP. However,much cross-program technical assistance has been provided by staff from severaldivisions and districts. This agency-wide cooperation has been invaluable to theRAP program.

Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)LaMP stands for Lakewide Management Plan. A LaMP is a comprehensivemanagement plan to restore and protect the waters in each of the GreatLakes. Using LaMPs as a tool to restore water quality is highlighted in the GreatLakes Water Quality Agreement(GLWQA). LaMPs are currently underway forLakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan and Superior.

The goal of the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan is to preserve, restore andprotect the beneficial uses of Lake Erie. The development of the Lake Erie LaMPcan best be thought of as a problem solving process. The first step is to identifyimpairments and then the causes and sources. Finally, the desired state for thelake needs to be articulated. A vision of the desired state of Lake Erieallows progress in resolving water quality problems to be evaluated and to identifywhen the objectives for a clean and healthy lake have been reached. The completionof these steps will set the stage for action.

Three Lake Erie LaMP technical subcommittees are working on each of the aspectsmentioned above. The Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment Subcommittee isidentifying current water quality problems. The Sources and LoadingsSubcommittee is identifying the key chemical sources of identified water qualityproblems. The Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee is developing objectives thatdefine the collective desired state for Lake Erie and reflect sound science andpublic values. When the work of these three subcommittees is complete, the coreelements needed to begin the action planning process will be in place. It is

56


recognized that all Lake Erie water quality issues are not captured within the 14beneficial use impairments identified by the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement. Similarly, all impairments are not caused by chemical contaminants. These issues will be addressed as the LaMP development process continues.

U.S. EPA Region 5 and Environment Canada have been serving as the federal co-leads for this initial effort. In the United States, the State of Ohiohas served as the lead State, with participation from Michigan, Pennsylvania, andNew York. In Canada, other participating agencies have been the Department ofFisheries and Oceans, Agriculture Canada, the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, and theOntario Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Beneficial Use ImpairmentsThis principal purpose of the Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment or BUIA is todetermine the overall health and well-being of the lake. The Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement lists 14 beneficial use impairments against which the health ofthe Great Lakes are to be measured. These impairments and associated criteriaare:

• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption: When contaminant levels infish or wildlife populations exceed current standards, objectives or guidelines,or public health advisories are in effect for human consumption of fish andwildlife.

• Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor: When ambient water quality standards,objectives, or guidelines for the anthropogenic substance(s) known to causetainting are being exceeded or survey results have identified tainting of fishand wildlife flavor.

• Degraded fish and wildlife populations: When fish or wildlife managementprograms have identified degraded fish or wildlife populations. In addition,this use will be considered impaired when relevant, field-validated, fish andwildlife bioassays with appropriate quality assurance/quality controls confirmsignificant toxicity from water column or sediment contaminants.

57


• Fish tumors or other deformities: When the incidence rates of fish tumorsor other deformities exceed rates at unimpacted control sites or when surveydata confirm the presence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumors inbullheads or suckers.

• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems: When wildlife surveydata confirm the presence of deformities (e.g. cross-bill syndrome) or otherreproductive problems (e.g., egg-shell thinning) in sentinel wildlife species.

• Degradation of benthos: When the benthic macroinvertebrate communitystructure significantly diverges from unimpacted control sites of comparablephysical and chemical characteristics. In addition, this use will be consideredimpaired when toxicity (as defined by relevant, field-validated bioassays withappropriate quality assurance/quality controls) of sediment associatedcontaminants at a site is significantly higher than controls.

• Restrictions on dredging activities: When contaminants in sedimentsexceed standards, criteria, or guidelines such that there are restrictions ondredging or disposal activities.

• Eutrophication or undesirable algae: When there are persistent waterquality problems (e.g., dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisancealgal blooms or accumulation, decreased water clarity, etc.) attributed tocultural eutrophication.

• Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems: When treated drinking water supplies are impacted to the extent that: 1)densities of disease- causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous ortoxic chemicals or radioactive substances exceed human health standards,objectives or guidelines; 2) taste and odor problems are present; or 3)treatment needed to make raw water suitable for drinking is beyond thestandard treatment used in comparable portions of the Great Lakes which arenot degraded (i.e., settling, coagulation, disinfection).

• Beach closings: When waters, which are commonly used for total-bodycontact or partial-body contact recreation, exceed standards, objectives, or

58


guidelines for such use.

• Degradation of aesthetics: When any substance in water produces apersistent objectionable deposit, unnatural color or turbidity, or unnaturalodor (e.g., oil slick, surface scum).

• Added costs to agriculture and industry: When there are additional costsrequired to treat the water prior to use for agricultural purposes (i.e.including, but not limited to, livestock watering, irrigation and crop-spraying)or industrial purposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial applicationsand non-contact food processing).

• Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton: When phytoplankton orzooplankton community structure significantly diverges from unimpactedcontrol sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. In addition,this use will be considered impaired when relevant, field-validated,phytoplankton or zooplankton bioassays (e.g., Ceriodaphnia; algal fractionationbioassays) with appropriate quality assurance/quality controls confirm toxicityin ambient waters.

• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat: When fish or wildlife management goalshave not been met as a result of loss of fish or wildlife habitat due to aperturbation in the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the BoundaryWaters, including wetlands.

For each beneficial use impairment assessment that has been completed to date, atechnical report is available (LaMP 1997a,b,c,d; 1998a,b).

Ohio EPA Biological Assessment and Biocriteria DevelopmentIn 1993, Ohio EPA initiated the development of biological assessment methodsand biological criteria development for the Lake Erie nearshore and the inundatedmouths of rivers and harbors (i.e., lacustuaries). The field work for this effort waslargely completed in 1997. Working versions of an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)for the fish community and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) weredeveloped as a result. These new tools and database will be used to produce acomprehensive assessment of the status of the Lake Erie shoreline and lacustuary

59


areas, which has been essentially lacking in the past. This should result in asignificant upgrade to the Lake Erie portion of the Ohio Water ResourceInventory. This will also be of value to the LaMP beneficial use impairmentassessment and the RAP process.

Lake Erie Quality IndexIn 1998, the Ohio Lake Erie Commission released a document entitled Lake ErieQuality Index. This reported on the present condition of the Ohio waters of LakeErie, using indicators and metrics that were deemed most important andunderstandable to most Ohioans. The motivation behind compiling the QualityIndex was the realization that there were no adequate benchmarks to monitor andevaluate progress towards restoring the lake. There were also many parameters forwhich precise goals had not been established. With input from the public, variouslake experts, and State agencies, the Quality Index accomplished the followingobjectives: 1) determined what is essential to know about Lake Erie; 2) designedeffective measuring systems for these essential factors; and, 3) established goals andscoring systems that would allow for critical evaluation of progress.

The Quality Index did not address what needs to be done to achieve the establishedenvironmental, recreational, and economic goals it identified. The Lake ErieCommission initiated a follow-up effort called the Lake Erie Protection and RestorationPlan, that is to map out a long-term strategy for achieving the goals presented inthe Quality Index and ensure future improvements to Lake Erie. The Plan will focuson the various metrics established in the Quality Index, catalogue all current effortsunderway, and identify the additional initiatives and resources necessary to achievethe Quality Index goals and objectives. This plan will be completed in the year 2000.

2.11 Ohio River Valley Sanitation CommissionThe Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), established bycompact in 1948 to control and abate pollution in the Ohio River Valley, is aninterstate commission representing eight states and the federal government.Member states are: Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,Virginia and West Virginia. The Commission operates programs to improve waterquality in the Ohio River and its tributaries, including setting wastewaterdischarge standards, performing biological assessments, monitoring for chemicaland physical properties of the waterways, and conducting special surveys

60


and studies. ORSANCO also coordinates emergency response activities for spills oraccidental discharges to the river, and promotes public participation in programs,such as the Ohio River Sweep and River Watchers volunteer monitoring program.

ORSANCO essentially conducts all monitoring and assessment activities in theOhio River mainstem on the behalf of the States. This includes data management,interpretation, and assessment including the 305(b) report. ORSANCO operates anetwork of fixed stations which are sampled monthly for chemical/physicalparameters and a selection of continuous four parameter monitors. Recently, moreemphasis has been placed on intensive and investigative surveys which generally usenavigational dam pools as study units. ORSANCO also initiated an extensivebioassessment and biological criteria development program in 1992 including fishand macroinvertebrate community assessments. To date, a working index for thefish community has been developed and termed the Ohio River Fish Index(ORFIn). This work is expected to continue and will likely lead to an improved305(b) report and possibly refined designated aquatic life uses.

61


Chapter 3: Ohio EPA Surface Water Monitoring Programs

3.1 IntroductionMonitoring and assessment information, when based on a sufficientlycomprehensive and rigorous system of environmental indicators, is integral toprotecting human health, preserving and restoring ecosystem integrity, andsustaining a viable economy (ITFM 1992). Such a strategy is intended to achieve abetter return on public and private investments in environmental protection andnatural resources management. In short, more and better monitoring andassessment information is needed to answer the fundamental questions that havebeen repeatedly asked about the condition of our water resources and to shape thestrategies needed to deal with both existing and emerging problems within thecontext of watershed-based management. These principles have guided thedevelopment of surface water monitoring and assessment at Ohio EPA for the past21 years and will continue to do so in the future.

A Long Term Vision for Monitoring and AssessmentThe long-term vision espoused by the ITFM (1995) and which is reflected in theU.S. EPA 106/604b guidance is to develop a process for the comprehensiveassessment of the waters of each State. This is to be accomplished byimplementing a multi-year monitoring and assessment framework at all relevantgeographic scales to support all water quality management objectives (includingrisk-based decision making). Some of the key elements of this approach are:

• development and implementation of a statewide monitoring strategy.• publishing monitoring and assessment results from relevant sources (e.g.,

Watershed-specific reports, State 305[b] reports).• maintaining data storage, retrieval, and management.• taking appropriate regulatory and management actions based on those

results.

These efforts would fall short if a linkage between program management andmonitoring and assessment were not made an integral part of the overall waterquality management process (Figure 12). This, too, is part of the long range visionfor revitalizing the role of water quality monitoring nationwide (ITFM 1995). TheOhio EPA process of using monitoring and assessment information reflects these

62


attributes.

3.2 Key Principles of the Adequate State Watershed Monitoring Approach

MANAGEMENTACTIONS

MONITORINGPURPOSES

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

<<<<

<<<<

<<<<

Awareness ofProblems/Issues

Define Water Re-source Conditions

Analyze for Man-agement Options

Characterize Exist-ing & Emerging

Problems By Type,Magnitude, & Geo-

graphic ExtentChoose Courses

of ActionProvide InformationBase for DesigningAbatement, Control,

& ManagementStrategies

Design & Imple-ment Programs

Evaluate ProgramEffectiveness

Make Adjustmentsin Priorities & Pro-

grams

Provide Informationfor Evaluating Pro-gram Effectiveness

Reveal Trends inWater Resource

Quality

Figure 12. The relationship between management actions andthe purposes of monitoring and assessment (after ITFM1995).

In 1997, ASIWPCA and U.S. EPA, in concert with a cooperative agreement withOhio EPA, collaborated in an effort to better define the important concepts,

principles, and elementsneeded for State watershedmonitoring and assessmentprograms. The resultingdocument entitledImportant Concepts andElements of an Adequate StateWatershed Monitoring andAssessment Program (Yoder1997) is summarized hereas an outline of theapproach taken by OhioEPA to surface watermonitoring and assessment.

Program Goals for StatesThe following is acompilation of the majorprogram goals that shouldshape the design of anadequate State monitoringand assessment programand thus become theidentifiable characteristics(Yoder 1997). While thisis patterned after the majormonitoring compendia andprogram guidance that hasrecently been developed(ITFM 1995; U.S. EPA

1994 [106/604b guidance]), the specifics of implementation lie within the

63


custodial responsibilities of State water programs.

1) The 18 national water indicators and the goals each measures (U.S. EPA 1995a)serve as core indicators with other goals and indicators as needed to fulfill thefollowing purposes:

• Conserve and enhance public health.• Conserve and enhance ecosystems.• Support uses designated by States/Tribes in Water Quality Standards (WQS).• Conserve and improve ambient conditions.• Reduce or prevent loadings and other stressors (e.g., habitat degradation).

2) Assess all water resource types within an organized temporal framework (e.g.,rotating basin approach) by employing the following approaches:

• Achieve virtually 100% coverage through a mix of different spatial schemes,i.e., targeted sites, rotating basin cycles, and/or probabalistic design.

• Utilize appropriate and robust techniques for extrapolation and stratificationof monitoring and assessment results (i.e., every mile of every stream need notbe monitored to achieve the 100% coverage goal).

• Maximize interagency and inter-organizational cooperation and collaboration.• When appropriate, make use of volunteer organization results.

3) Produce a “better” 305b report:• National statistics are currently biased by wide differences between State

approaches to monitoring & assessment including indicators usage andcalibration - one result is widely divergent State estimates of impaired waters(generally overly optimistic estimates of the full attainment of aquatic lifeuses).

• Assignment of impairment (or lack thereof) to associated causes and sourcesalso reveals the inconsistent usage of indicators and indicator frameworks -e.g., habitat has been under-reported by most States (almost one-half of Statesreported zero impaired miles for rivers and streams in 1992).

4) Support the emerging watershed approaches:

64


• Reductions in State monitoring and assessment programs jeopardize thescience basis for successfully implementing watershed-based approacheswhich are ostensibly based (in part) on addressing previously overlooked orunder-emphasized problems.

• Management applications most commonly take place at the watershed levelthus monitoring and assessment must be relevant to this management scaleand be capable of detecting impairments and characterizing aquatic resourcesat this scale.

5) Satisfy basic questions that are frequently encountered and/or asked by waterquality program managers:

• What is the condition of surface, ground, estuarine, and coastal waters?• How and why are conditions changing over time?• What are the associated causes and sources of impairment?• Are water quality management programs producing the desired results?• Are State and national water quality goals being attained?

6) Integrate the water resource integrity concepts that have been developedduring the past 10-15 years into monitoring and assessment approaches,environmental indicators, and watershed-based programs:

• The five factors that determine the integrity of water resources (see Figure 2)should be used to guide the development of environmental indicators -indicators which represent or extend to each major factor and which reflectthe integrity of the water resource as a whole (e.g., composite measures,indices) are needed.

• Follow the stressor, exposure, response paradigm for determining the mostappropriate roles for specific indicators - avoid the inappropriatesubstitution of stressor and exposure indicators for response indicators.

• Utilize appropriate regionalization schemes (e.g., ecoregions, subregions) tostratify and partition natural variability for ambient indicators.

• Incorporate tiered and refined use designations in the State WQS asappropriate.

• Use the water indicators hierarchy (see Figure 1) as an operationalframework for State water quality management programs - make linkages

65


between administrative activities and indicators of stress, exposure, andresponse.

The Ohio EPA program meets the majority of these goals, particularly in theinfrastructure of monitoring and assessment tools and resources, environmentalindicators use and development, WQS, and integration with water qualitymanagement. An area for improvement is in meeting the goal of assessing 100% ofthe State’s waters and consistently assessing all resource types. This will beaddressed in chapter 5 (monitoring needs assessment).

State Monitoring and Assessment Program ObjectivesThe following are some of the principal objectives that State monitoring andassessment programs should have as priorities. Fully meeting some of theseobjectives requires time to acquire and develop the necessary database, indicators,and staff expertise. However, this is dependent on the status of existing and pastState monitoring and assessment efforts -- for Ohio, there exists a 20+ yeardatabase. Using the following objectives provides a basis for determining theadequacy of a given State program. A well rounded approach to indicators andmonitoring design utilizing a core set of chemical, physical, and biologicalindicators should provide the information needed to simultaneously meet theseobjectives without the need to redesign the approach for each different objective.

1) Baseline characterizations of surface water resources:

• Status and trends information.• Aquatic resource characterization.

2) Identification and characterization of existing and emerging problems:

• Selection of indicators and the overall indicator framework will stronglyinfluence the adequacy of problem identification and characterization (wecannot address problems that we do not know about or adequatelyunderstand).

• The indicator framework and monitoring design must be prepared to provideinformation and insights to problems that may not yet be understood or evenrecognized.

66


• There will be a need to go beyond point source paradigms.• Make better linkages between designated uses and indicators.

3) Guide and evaluate the water quality management and regulatory process:

• Monitoring and assessment information should drive the regulatory andmanagement processes from problem identification through to assessing theeffectiveness of these efforts.

• The 305[b] process (i.e., Water Body System) should be the central reportingmechanism for State programs - this will further benefit the compendia andassessments compiled by EPA, other federal agencies, and privateorganizations.

• Support the development and refinement of aquatic life and other designateduses in State WQS.

• Examples of other regulatory and management programs that can beinfluenced and include 303[d] listing, TMDLs, water quality-based permitting,compliance and enforcement, prioritizing grants and other financialassistance, the State nonpoint source assessment (319 program), etc.

• Monitoring and assessment information should provide the impetus forimproved regulatory or program management directions (e.g., initiatives torestore and protect riparian habitat, nutrient criteria, sediment criteria,antidegradation, etc.) and enhance existing efforts (CSOs, stormwater,404/401 program, chemical criteria validation, biological criteria, etc.).

4) Evaluation of overall water quality management program effectiveness:

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of 25+ years of CWA programimplementation.

• Establish linkages between administrative activities (i.e., “bean counts”) andenvironmental results (i.e., ambient chemical, physical, and biologicalindicators).

• Which actions worked and which ones did not? Provide insights on why andsuggest what specific program and/or resource adjustments might be needed.

5) Responding to emergencies, complaint investigations:

67


• Quantify environmental damages on a spatial and/or temporal basis.• Characterize resources at risk.• Define the magnitude of apparent problems.

6) Identify and characterize reference conditions:

• Baseline for development of indicator benchmarks for evaluating designateduse attainment/non-attainment (e.g., biological criteria) and othermanagement objectives.

• This functions as a long term data source for characterizing ambientbiological, chemical, and physical conditions through time.

The Ohio EPA program meets all of these objectives by having the tools andresources in terms of criteria, program structure, and design, the Five-Year BasinApproach being the fundamental framework of the latter.

Monitoring Design ApproachesA key issue facing the States is the selection of an appropriate monitoring design. It has been recognized for some time that the traditional fixed station design (e.g.,NAWQMN, NASQAN) common to many historical State monitoring networks issimply insufficient to meet the previously stated objectives. However, Statemonitoring and assessment resources continue to be limited and therefore must beprioritized. Selecting information-effective spatial designs is a critical step in theprocess. Two approaches, a synoptic, targeted design commonly referred to as arotating basin approach and the probabalistic design developed by the U.S. EPAEMAP program are summarized here. The strengths and weaknesses of each areindicated with respect to the multiple issues that State monitoring and assessmentprograms must address.

Rotating Basin Approach1) Strengths:

• Organized, systematic approach based on accumulating assessmentinformation at a local scale over a fixed period of time, usually 5 or 10 years.

• Coincides with various management programs which are supported by themonitoring and assessment information (i.e., NPDES permit reissuance,

68


basin-wide water quality planning, proposed 5-year 305b reporting cycle).• Provides monitoring and assessment information at a local or reach specific

scale so that the many issues which occur at this level can be addressed whileproviding the opportunity to aggregate upwards to a watershed, regional,statewide, or national scale once sufficient data exists.

• There is more opportunity to define gradients of specific human disturbanceswith assessment information (e.g., Karr’s human activity "dose" - ecologicalresponse curve).

• Develop and maintain tabs on reference condition in a predictable andstandardized time frame.

2) Weaknesses:• Visiting a basin/segment/watershed once every 5 or 10 years may not be

sufficient to satisfy all information needs.• Larger scale assessment information (i.e., in support of a statewide

assessment) is generally only available after 10 years of effort.

The entirety of Ohio EPA’s Five-Year Basin Approach sampling utilizes this design.

Probabalistic Design1) Strengths:

• statistically robust design.• “faster” route to a statewide assessment - aggregate to national scale.• transcends State boundary limitations - can facilitate collaborative

monitoring between States.

2) Weaknesses:• lacks site-specific/issue-specific resolution.• logistics are potentially more difficult (i.e., more difficult access to remote

monitoring sites).• reference condition may be more difficult to define on probability basis

alone.• local scale issues may be overlooked.

A case example from the Ohio portion of the E. Corn Belt Plains ecoregionRegional EMAP project is summarized in Yoder (1997). In this example the

69


results of the 1994 probabalistic sampling was compared to four years of rotatingbasin monitoring in the same region.

Other DesignsThe current Ohio EPA approach emphasizes a rotating basin approach and thisrepresents a 20+ year database commitment. We have recently implemented athird design which is termed the Geometric Site Selection process and this is usedas part of the five-year basin assessments. Sites within a watershed area areselected based on a geometric progression of drainage area starting with the largestarea of the watershed and working down to the 2-5 square mile range. Thisapproach is not entirely random, but it allows for appropriate stratificationaccording to available stream sizes (based on drainage area). Some of the principalbenefits of this design are the ability to economize sampling resources on awatershed scale, development of a stratified database, and the enhanced ability tocapture previously unassessed streams. This approach has been particularly usefulfor watersheds that are targeted for TMDL development in that unassessed watersand outdated assessments can be resolved just prior to TMDL development. Gapswhich occur along the larger mainstem rivers and streams are filled with thesynoptic, targeted approach to assure that historical continuity is retained for bothbasin-specific and statewide assessments.

Coverage of All Aquatic Resource TypesDefining the different aquatic resource types that a State program needs to addressis another critical step in the process. This includes the major aquatic ecosystemtypes such as flowing waters (i.e., rivers and streams), lakes and reservoirs, coastalwaters, great lakes, estuaries, or wetlands. Further stratification within each shouldtake place (e.g., headwater streams, wadable streams, large rivers, depressionalwetlands, riparian wetlands, etc.) and may be accounted for a priori or as part of theindicator development and calibration process. Other stratification elements,which include watershed driving factors (e.g., ecoregions) and other physicalvectors, are incorporated as well. Designated aquatic life uses provide anadditional layer of stratification. Taken together all of these processes shouldresult in more finely tuned and accurate indicator expectations or benchmarksagainst which management program success will ultimately be judged.

Ohio EPA has emphasized flowing waters (rivers and streams) since the majority of

70


water quality management issues occur in these water body types. This includeslarger streams and rivers that are generally regarded as being non-wadeable. Theexperience gained in performing assessments here has led to the development oftechniques in other water body types including the Lake Erie nearshore (coastalwaters) and river mouth and harbor areas (estuaries), the Ohio River mainstem incooperation with ORSANCO (great river), and wetlands. We expect that thesedevelopmental efforts will be developed into routine components of the overallmonitoring and assessment process and include the integration of information withthe development and refinement of WQS and designated uses. The specifics areincluded in the needs assessment in Chapter 5. The inland lake and reservoirprogram is limited, by comparison, to assessments of trophic state and on aschedule which was recently modified to coincide with the Five-Year BasinApproach.

Monitoring and Assessment ComponentsState monitoring and assessment programs need to include the appropriateambient measurements in order to adequately meet the previously stated goals andobjectives. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality(ITFM 1992, 1993) recommended the minimum elements of an adequatemonitoring and assessment program that will support meeting the previouslystated goals and objectives. These also represents the elements essential toimplementing the hierarchy of water indicators framework which is needed notonly to demonstrate program effectiveness, but provide opportunities for feedbackresulting in future program improvements. Table 3 lists indicators by categories bycategories of management objective and these are further stratified by general usesand the indicator level specified by the indicators hierarchy (see Figure 3). Morespecifically, a set of core and supplemental indicators and parameters wasrecommended for surface water monitoring (Figure 13). The core parametersconsisting of two biological organism groups, habitat parameters, and basic fieldwater quality parameters are measured everywhere. Supplemental parameters andindicators are selected in accordance with applicable designated uses and theselargely include the suite of chemical water quality, bacterial, and tissuecontaminant indicators and parameters. Ohio EPA follows this approach in thefive-year basin process and all other extensions in an effort to meet theaforementioned goals and objectives. Utilization of this approach allows for theimplementation of comprehensive, but cost-effective monitoring and assessment.

71


The ITFM (1995) concluded that the implementation of the nationalrecommendations and strategy would result in an adequate information base toachieve the environmental protection and natural resource management goals andobjectives established for the nation's aquatic resources. Some of the stepstowards a more comprehensive and effective approach to ambient monitoringinclude the following which also summarizes the major points of this document:

1) Develop a goal oriented approach to monitoring, assessment, and indicatorsdevelopment where indicators are sufficiently specific so as to explicitlymeasure the identified national goals and those relevant to State WQS.

2) Evaluate information priorities and identify existing information gaps.

3) Develop a comprehensive and flexible approach that addresses all relevantscales and aquatic resource types.

4) Take advantage of inter-organizational collaboration whenever appropriate.

5) Link traditional compliance monitoring with watershed-based ambientmonitoring.

6) Deal effectively with methods comparability to maximize the flexibility inmonitoring and assessment approaches while producing data andinformation of known quality and power of assessment.

7) Automate and streamline data and information management including dataentry, storage, and retrieval.

8) Develop better assessment and reporting at all relevant scales; publish resultson a regular basis.

9) Promote the development of incentives and the elimination of disincentivesto the development of better State ambient monitoring programs andindicators.

Simply upgrading the monitoring program to include more and bettermeasurements and the better conversion of data to information, while important,

72


Table 3. Summary matrix of recommended environmental indicators for meeting management objectives forstatus and trends of surface waters (a bold X is recommended as a primary indicator after ITFM1993; other recommended indicators are designated by √). The corresponding EPA indicatorhierarchy level (see Figure 3) is also listed for each suite of indicator groups.

____________________________________________________________________

Categories of Management Objectives ________________________________________________________

Human Health Ecological Health Economic Concerns_______________________________________________________________________________

Recreation Aquatic/ Industry/Consump- Public (swimming, Semi- Energy/ Agriculture/

INDICATOR of Fish/ Water fishing, aquatic Transpor- Foresrty/GROUP Shellfish Supply boating) Life tation Mining

____________________________________________________________________Biological Response Indicators (Level 6)

Macroinvertebrates X X X XFish X X X X XSemiaquatic animals X X X XPathogens X X X XPhytoplankton X X X X XPeriphyton XAquatic Plants X X X XXZooplankton X X X X

____________________________________________________________________Chemical Exposure Indicators (Levels 4&5)

Water chemistry X X X X X XOdor/Taste X X X XSediment Chemistry X X X X X XTissue Chemistry X X X XBiochemical Markers √ √ √ √ √

____________________________________________________________________Physical Habitat/Hydrological Indicators (Levels 3&4)

Hydrological Measures X X X X X XTemperature X X X X X √Geomorphology X X X X X XRiparian/Shoreline X X √ X X XHabitat Quality √ √ √ √ √ √

_______________________________________________________________________________

73


Table 3. Continued____________________________________________________________________

Categories of Management Objectives ________________________________________________________

Human Health Ecological Health Economic Concerns_______________________________________________________________________________

Recreation Aquatic/ Industry/Consump- Public (swimming, Semi- Energy/ Agriculture/

INDICATOR of Fish/ Water fishing, aquatic Transpor- Foresrty/GROUP Shellfish Supply boating) Life tation Mining

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Watershed Scale Stressor Indicators (Levels 3,4,&5)

Land Use Patterns X X X X X XHuman Alterations X X X X X √Watershed Imperm. √ √ √ √ √ √

____________________________________________________________________Pollutant Loadings Indicators (Level 3)

Point Source Loads √ √ √ √ √ √Nonpoint Loadings √ √ √ √ √ √Spills/Other Releases √ √ √ √ √ √

____________________________________________________________________

74


is alone insufficient. To achieve the overall goal of improving the use ofmonitoring and assessment information in the watershed approach, water qualitymanagement must mature to focus primarily on the condition of the environmentas the overall measure of program success (Figure 14). Whereas the performance

of the program wasonce a principalmeasure ofeffectiveness, theprogram is now animportant tool to beused alongsidemonitoring andassessment andenvironmentalindicators to improvethe quality of theenvironment.

CORE INDICATORS/PARAMETERS• Fish Assemblage • Macroinvertebrates • Periphyton

(Use Community Level Data From At Least Two)

Physical Habitat Indicators• Channel morphology • Flow• Substrate Quality • Riparian

Chemical Quality Indicators• pH • Temperature• Conductivity • Dissolved O

2

For Specific Designated Uses Add the Following:

AQUATIC LIFEBase List:• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List:• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sediment)

RECREATIONALBase List:• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strengthSupplemental List:• Other pathogens• Organics (water/sediment)

WATER SUPPLYBase List:• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List:• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sediment)• Other pathogens

HUMAN/WILDLIFE CONSUMPTIONBase List:• Metals (in tissues)• Organics (in tissues)

Figure 13. Core indicators and parameters for an adequate Statewatershed monitoring and assessment program with supplementalchemical parameters according to the applicable designated use(s). Parameters are added based on site and watershed-specific needs andoverall water quality management objectives (after ITFM 1993).

3.2 Ohio EPASurface WaterMonitoring ProgramImplementationPlanning forenvironmental datacollection activitieswithin the Division of

Surface Water generally follows a Data Quality Objectives (DQO) approach to thedesign, sampling, and assessment of monitoring results in support of the overallsurface water quality management goals and objectives. This involves strategicplanning for the purpose of ensuring that data collection operations are performedin a cost-effective manner. This is accomplished by assuring that only appropriateand useful data will be collected while maintaining the ability to adequately assessthe surface waters of the state. DSW has approximately 30 years of comprehensiveexperience in operating statewide and regional ambient surface water monitoringnetworks and in the use and development of cost-effective, but sufficiently robust

75


chemical, physical, and biological measures and indicators. Incorporated into thisprocess has been the consideration of the need for sufficiently rigorous decisioncriteria and thresholds including the appropriate resolution and sensitivity of thedata and indicators. This has allowed DSW to focus on problems in relation totheir known and probable impact on the environment. At the same time, a

reliance on a key setof

PROGRAM FOCUSED

APPROACH

Two Approaches to Watershed-Based Water Quality Management

RESOURCE FOCUSED

APPROACH

Goal: Program Performance Environmental Performance

Measures: Administrative Actions Indicator End-points

Results: Improve Programs Programs are Tools to Improve the Environment

Figure 14. The goals, measures, and results of program based andresource based approaches to water quality management. Stateprograms will evolve towards a resource based approach bydeveloping and using a sufficiently comprehensive and rigoroussystem of environmental indicators.

core indicators(Table 3; Figure 13)has allowed DSW todiscover and betterunderstand previouslyunknown or poorlyunderstood problemsand phenomena.

Resources Devoted toMonitoring andAssessmentResources devoted tomonitoring andassessment activitiesinclude theMonitoring and

Assessment Section (Ecological Assessment and Water Quality Modeling Units)and the five District Water Quality Units. In SFY 1999, monitoring andassessment resources in terms of full time positions comprised approximately 53FTEs (full time equivalents) or 16% of all resources devoted to water qualitymanagement (includes surface water component of the State Revolving Loan Fundprogram and the Division of Environmental Services laboratory support: Table 4). Funding amounts are detailed in Table 5 and this comprised approximately 21% ofthe water quality management budget. In terms of adequacy, these resources comeclose to some “rules of thumb” for determining monitoring and assessmentsupport, but fall short of others. For example, the 16% figure is well within the 15-20% that has been advanced as meeting adequate State monitoring and assessmentneeds as a proportion of the water quality management program. However, the 18FTEs devoted to Ecological Assessment falls short of the 29 FTEs needed to meet

76


the goal of 1 FTE for every 1000 miles of perennial and designated stream and rivermile (Yoder and Rankin 1995). More information on resource needs is detailed inChapter 5.

Monitoring Networks and DesignDSW uses a tiered approach to the selection and use of a variety of chemical,physical, and biological indicators and measures. These decisions are based on thetype of aquatic resource being assessed (i.e., small stream, large river, lake, wetland),the environmental complexity of the setting (includes consideration of potentialstressors), and the water quality management objectives and purposes at issue. Forexample, in a small stream setting with only one or two potential stressors, onebiological organisms group might be assessed using a qualitative bioassessment, ahabitat assessment, and a chemical water quality assessment analyzing for field,demand, and nutrient series. A handful of sampling sites would suffice and thefield sampling would be completed in a matter of days. In a more complexwatershed setting with multiple stressors and the potential for unknown andundocumented sources, the sampling requirements are much more rigorous andwould include quantitative bioassessment of two organism groups, a habitatassessment, more intensive chemical water quality sampling with metals, otherselected toxics, and organic scans of both the water column and bottom sediments.The sampling site density would be in proportion to the location and entry ofpotential stressors into the aquatic system. The entire sampling effort would spanthe summer-fall index period and require many days to complete.

To further illustrate the DQO process used to scale environmental monitoring ofsurface waters, two examples are offered. The different types of indicators andparameters that comprise the DSW watershed monitoring and assessment

77


Table 4. Full-time equivalent (FTE) resources in the Division of Surface Water by majorprogram area for State Fiscal Year 1999. Surface water related FTEs for the StateRevolving Loan Fund (SRF) and Division of Environmental Services (DES) Based onthe DSW table of organization.

______________________________________________________________________________

I. Program Administration: 15 FTE (5% of WQ Mgmt.)Administration/Management - 10Fiscal - 5

II. Permitting/Compliance Assistance: 148 FTE (45% of WQ Mgmt.)Administration/Management - 2Permit Issuance/PTI/Antideg. - 98Permit Processing/Reporting - 15Stormwater - 8Agricultural/Sludge - 7Compliance/Tech. Asst. - 8401 Certification - 10

III. Watersheds/NPS/WQS: 35 FTE (11% of WQ Mgmt.)Administration/Management - 3Water Quality Standards - 5Nonpoint Source - 10Lake Erie/RAPs - 9GIS/Support - 4Watersheds/UWA - 2

IV. Monitoring & Assessment: 53 FTE (16% of WQ Mgmt.)Administration/Management - 2Water Quality Modeling/TMDLs - 15 (4.5% of WQ Mgmt.)Ecological Assessment - 18 (5.5% of WQ Mgmt.)

•Biological surveys - [10]•Data Support/Biocriteria - [3]•Wetland Indicators - [2]•Lake Erie - [1]•Remedial Response - [2]

Ambient WQ/Compliance/Complaint - 18 (5.5% of WQ Mgmt.)

DSW Totals: 251 FTESRF Total: 38 FTELab. Services: 40 FTE

TOTAL WQ Management: 329 FTE______________________________________________________________________________

78


Table 5. Funding breakdowns for chemical water quality, biological/habitat, and water qualitymodelling/TMDL monitoring in SFY 1999.

______________________________________________________________________________

I. Chemical Water Quality:• Sample collection/data analysis $1.06 million• Laboratory Analysis (water/sediment; 5450 samples) $1.93 million• Fish tissue contaminants (555 samples) $0.29 millionSubtotal $3.28 million

II. Biological/Habitat:• Fish/Macroinvertebrates $1.14 million• Biocriteria Development & Maintenance $0.20 million• Equipment/Supplies $0.10 millionSubtotal $1.44 million

III. WQ Modeling/TMDLs:• WLA/TMDL $0.90 million• Equipment/Supplies $0.15 millionSubtotal $1.05 million

TOTAL $5.77 million(21% of WQ Mgmt. Budget)

______________________________________________________________________________

approach is consistent with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental TaskForce on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM 1992) for core and supplementalindicators for use in State programs (Figure 13). The core parameters form thebasis of all monitoring and assessment as these are collected in nearly all situations.These comprise the baseline of the assessment process used by DSW and aredirectly linked to the data and information needs for fundamental assessmentquestions such as use attainment status, water quality standards compliance, useattainability, delineating associated causes/sources of threat or impairment, andbasic reporting (e.g., 305b report) and listing requirements (e.g., 303d listings). Thesupplemental parameters are added, as in the preceding example, as the complexity

79


and assessment needs (or questions) increase in diversity, quantity, and complexity.Table 3 showed a larger suite of indicator categories that are related to classes ofpossible management objectives. These may be addressed as part of the fieldsampling or accessed later in the analysis and reporting phases of the assessmentprocess.

These approaches economize sampling resources by scaling the intensity andcomplexity of the monitoring and assessment effort ion accordance with thequestions to be resolved. This type of approach also allows for more flexiblemanagement responses that are attenuated by the information revealed about theenvironmental complexity of the setting, the quality of the aquatic resource, andthe potential pollution problems encountered. Effective implementation of thisprocess is had only through the experience and knowledge gained by conductingmonitoring and assessment for many years and over a wide geographical area.

A second example of the DQO process is with the selection of the appropriatebiological assessment method and protocol for a given situation. Table 6 defines ahierarchy of bioassessment methods from very simple, comparatively low resolutionprotocols to the more rigorous and reliable techniques practicable for' Statebioassessment program. The level of the bioassessment is comparably defined bythe skill or expertise level required by the operator, the standard methodologyassociated with each (appropriate QA/QC procedures included), the relativeaccuracy of the method in terms of making the “correct” assessment, thediscriminatory power (i.e., the ability to detect actual changes in condition), andhow this should influence policy decisions made with that method. This type ofmatrix should allow program managers to evaluate the need for comparative rigorin environmental decision making with level of effort required for a givenbioassessment technique. This is both a programmatic and individual studydecision in that the monitoring and assessment program needs to have theappropriate suite of tiered methods (calibrated and verified) available beforedeciding which ones to apply to a given assessment question. Table 7 illustratesthese same concepts in a different manner by showing the relative capabilities ofdifferent levels of bioassessment currently available to DSW to fulfill and/or satisfyvarious needs within the major surface water program areas at Ohio EPA. Designations of excellent, good, fair, and poor indicate the relative capability andpower of the bioassessment method to provide an adequate, cost-effective, and

80


Table 6. Hierarchy of ambient bioassessment approaches defined by Yoder (1995) that use informationabout indigenous aquatic biological communities (NOTE: this applies to aquatic life use attainmentonly - it does not apply to bioaccumulation concerns, wildlife uses, human health, or recreation uses).

_______________________________________________________________________________________

BIOASSESSMENT SKILL ORGANISM TECHNICAL ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISCRIMINATORY POLICY TYPE/LEVEL REQUIRED1 GROUPS2 COMPONENTS3 COMPLEXITY4 ACCURACY5 POWER6 RESTRICTIONS7

_________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Stream Walk Non-biologist None Handbook8 Simple Low Low Many(Visual Obser- vations)

2. Volunteer Non-biologist Inverte- Handbook9, Low Low to Low ManyMonitoring to Technician brates Simple equipment Moderate

3. Professional Biologist w/ None or Historical Low to Low to Low ManyOpinion (e.g., experience Fish/Inverts. records Moderate ModerateRBP Protocol V)

4. RBP Proto- Biologist w/ Inverte- Tech. Manual,10 Low Low to Low to Manycol I&II training brates Simple equip. to Moderate Moderate Moderate

5. Narrative Aquatic Biolo- Fish &/or Std. Methods, Moderate Moderate Moderate ModerateEvaluations gist w/training Inverts. Detailed taxonomy

& experience Specialized equip.

6. Single Dimen- (same) (same) (same) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderatesion Indices

7. Biotic Indices (same) Inverte- (same) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate(HBI, BCI, etc.) brates to High to High to Few

8. RBP Proto- (same) Fish & Tech. Manual,10 High Moderate Moderate Fewcols III&V Inverts. Detailed taxonomy, to High to High

Specialized equip.,dual organism groups

9. Regional (same) Fish & Same plus baseline High High High FewReference Inverts. calibration of multi-Site Approach metric indices &

dual organism groups

10. Comprehen- (same) All Orga- Same except all Highest High High Fewsive Bioassess- nism organism groupsment Groups are sampled

_________________________________________________________________________________________1 Level of training and experience needed to accurately implement and use the bioassessment type.2 Organism groups that are directly used and/or sampled; fish and macroinvertebrates are most commonly employed in the midwest

states.3 Handbooks, technical manuals, taxonomic keys, and data requirements for each bioassessment type.4 Refers to ecological dimensions inherent in the basic data that is routinely generated by the bioassessment type.5 Refers to the ability of the ecological end-points or indicators to differentiate conditions along a gradient of environmental conditions.6 The relative power of the data and information derived to discriminate between different and increasingly subtle impacts.7 Refers to the relationship of biosurveys to chemical-specific, toxicological (i.e. bioassays), physical, and other assessments and criteriathat serve as surrogate indicators of aquatic life use attainment/non-attainment.8 Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters (Terrell and Perfetti 1989)9 Ohio Scenic River Stream Quality Monitoring (Kopec and Lewis 1983).10 U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Plafkin et al. 1989).

81

Table 7. The relative capabilities of different levels of bioassessment to fulfill and/or satisfy various needs within of major surface water program areas at Ohio EPA.Designations of EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, POOR, etc. indicate the relative capability and power of the bioassessment method to provide an adequate,cost-effective, and sufficiently comprehensive assessment for each program need.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MAJOR PROGRAM AREAS Basic WQS

--Reporting-- -Program- ----Watersheds/Nonpoint Sources---- ------NPDES Permitting------

Level of 5 Yr. Basin 305b Use Chem. General Education NPS Problem Permit Priority CSOs Toxic MixingBioassessment Surveys Report Desig. Criteria Screen Involvement Assess. Habitat Discovery Terms Setting Storm. Impact Zones__________________________________________________________________________________________________

A- Full Scale: EXCELL. EXCELL. EXC. EXC. EXCELL. FAIR1 EXC. EXC. EXCELL. EXC. EXC. EXC. EXC. EXC.(Fish, Macroin- vertebrates based

on mulimetric indices)

B- Partial Bio- GOOD GOOD GOOD2 FAIR GOOD2 FAIR1 GOOD2 GOOD2 GOOD2 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOODassess ments(Fish or Macro-invertebrates)

C- Qualitative FAIR3 GOOD POOR4 POOR4 GOOD FAIR1 FAIR4 POOR4 GOOD2 FAIR POOR4 GOOD2 FAIR GOODBioassment(Macroinvertebrates basedon narrative criteria)

D- EPA Rapid FAIR3 FAIR5 POOR4 POOR4 GOOD GOOD1 FAIR4 FAIR4 GOOD FAIR POOR4 FAIR5 FAIR5 FAIR5

BioassessmentProtocol II (Macroinvertebrates,family level of taxonomy)

E - “Volunteer” POOR6 FAIR7 POOR6 POOR6 FAIR7 EXCELL.8 FAIR7 POOR6 FAIR7 POOR6 POOR6 FAIR7 POOR6 POOR6

Methods (Macroinvertebrates based on SQM procedure)__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7. (continued)

FOOTNOTES:1 - Fair because complexity of data makes interpretation by untrained persons difficult; good because lower level of taxonomy is easier to attain.2 - Good only if macrohabitat is not a major limiting factor or if the Exceptional Warmwater Habitat or Modified Warmwater Habitat use designations are not an issue.3 - Fair if this is the only level included; level is strengthened if “A” level of assessment is available.4 - Poor because quantitative indices are lacking; can be strengthened with addition of Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index results (not normally part of this level).5 - Fair because family level of taxonomy limits interpretation power and utility of the resulting assessment.6 - Poor because the inherent methodology lacks sufficient resolution or reproducibility even with fine tuning and training.7 - Fair only if the assessment parameters have been sufficiently calibrated against the A-D levels of bioassessment; otherwise the rating is poor.8 - Excellent rating because the method can be used and understood by unskilled volunteers.


sufficiently comprehensive assessment for each program need. When the baselinerequirements of the Ohio WQS (e.g., the biological criteria) and the inherent decision errorrisks and tendencies implied by these two tables are considered, the appropriate level ofassessment and data collection that is needed to support a given situation should beobvious.

Monitoring and Assessment CoordinationThe coordination of ambient monitoring within DSW is the principal responsibility of theMonitoring and Assessment Section which consists of two units, Water Quality Modeling(WQM) and Ecological Assessment (EAU). WQM is responsible for all aspects ofmonitoring relevant to wasteload allocations and TMDLs including the selection ofparameters, methods use and development, sampling design, and QA/QC. The supervisor ofWQM has the primary responsibility for overseeing completion of these tasks. EAU isresponsible for other aspects of ambient monitoring including the Five-Year BasinApproach, special investigations, and maintenance of the regional reference site network. This includes the selection and development of environmental indicators, parameters,indices, statistical analysis, methods implementation and development, and QA/QC. Themanager of EAU is responsible for overseeing the completion of these tasks. The DistrictSurface Water Quality groups are responsible within this process for all chemical/physicalsampling including methods usage, sample custody, and field QA/QC. The Districts are alsoresponsible for carrying out duties related to the fixed station network. Laboratory analysisis performed by the Division of Environmental Services (DES) and they are responsible forall methods and QA/QC aspects of that work. The Quality Assurance Officer within DES isresponsible for the maintenance and coordination of the Quality Assurance Program Plan(QAPP) and the manual of field and laboratory methods.

Essential Technical Elements of the Five-Year Basin ApproachDSW's approach to surface water monitoring and management via the Five-Year BasinApproach essentially serves as an environmental feedback process taking the observationsmade in levels 4, 5, and 6 as evidence of program effectiveness or as environmental "cues" toeffect needed changes or adjustments within levels 1, 2 and 3 (see Figure 3). This hierarchyis essentially in place within the assessment process and represents, from a technicalassessment and indicators framework standpoint, a true watershed approach. Theenvironmental indicators used in this process are categorized as stressor, exposure, andresponse indicators. Stressor indicators generally include activities that impact, but whichmay or may not degrade the environment. This includes point and nonpoint source

84


loadings, land use changes, and other broad-scale influences that generally result fromanthropogenic activities. Exposure indicators include chemical-specific, whole effluenttoxicity, tissue residues, and biomarkers, each of which suggest or provide evidence ofbiological exposure to stressor agents. Response indicators include the direct measures ofthe status of use designations. For aquatic life uses the community and population responseparameters that are represented by the biological indices that comprise Ohio EPA’sbiological criteria are the principal response indicators. For human body contact uses (e.g.,Primary Contact Recreation) fecal bacteria (e.g., E. coli, fecal coliforms) are the principalresponse indicators. The key to having a successful watershed approach is in using thedifferent types of indicators within the roles that are the most appropriate for each. Theinappropriate use of stressor and exposure indicators as substitutes for response indicatorsis at the root of the national problem of widely divergent 305(b) statistics reported betweenthe States. This issue was extensively discussed in the 1996 Ohio Water ResourceInventory (Ohio EPA 1997) and Yoder and Rankin (1998).

Monitoring for Status and TrendsAn assessment of the impact of multiple sources on the receiving waters of a study area (i.e.,watershed) includes an evaluation of the available chemical/ physical (water column,effluents, sediment, flows), biological (fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages), and habitatdata which have been collected by DSW pursuant to the Five-Year Basin Approach. Otherdata may be used provided it was collected in accordance with DSW methods and protocolsas specified by the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) and DSW guidance documents. Other information which is evaluated includes, but is not limited to, NPDES permittee self-monitoring data and effluent and mixing zone bioassays conducted by DSW, the permittee,or U.S. EPA. The integration of this information for each study area is accomplished viathe assessment process. Besides evaluating status and trends for the applicable designateduses, the assessment also identifies and describes causal associations of use impairments bydelineating the predominant causes and sources of impairment. The completion of thisprocess enables the structured use of the output from the assessment (i.e., the assessment ofwater bodies) to support virtually any Ohio EPA program where surface water quality is aconcern.

The Five-Year Basin Approach Planning ProcessThe sequence of events within the Five-Year Basin Approach for a given basin year from theinitial screening of issues through the production of a final assessment are described inTable 8. This includes the major milestones and activities needed to select watershed areas

85


Table 8. Sequence of steps and milestones in the Five-Year Basin Approach conducted annually by OhioEPA, Division of Surface Water.

________________________________________________________________________________________

December - February: Initial screening of the major hydrologic areas takes place by soliciting input(Months 1 3) from the various program offices.

February - March: Final prioritization of issues and definition of study areas. Resource allocation (Months 3 thru 4) takes place and study team assignments are made.

March - May: Study planning takes place and consists of detailed map reconnaissance, (Months 4 thru 5) review of historical monitoring efforts, and initial sampling site selection by the

study team. Final study plans are reviewed and approved.

May - June: Final study plans are used to develop logistics for each field crew. Preparations(Months 5 thru 6) are made for full-scale field sampling.

June - October: Field sampling takes place with field crews operating somewhat independently(Months 6 thru 10) on a day-to-day basis, but coordinated by the study plan and team leader.

Study team communication takes place as necessary, especially to resolveunexpected situations.

October - February: Laboratory sample analysis takes place for chemical and biological parameters.(Months 10 thru 14) Raw data is entered into Ohio EPA databases for reduction and analysis. The

study team meets to review the information base generated by the fieldsampling and to coordinate the data analysis and reporting effort.

November - May: Information about indicator levels 3-6 is retrieved, compiled, and used to(Months 11 thru 17) produce analyses which will support the evaluation of status and trends and

causal associations within the study area. Integration of the information (i.e.,assessment) is initiated.

May - December: The assessment process is completed by first producing working copies of the(Months 17 thru 24) assessment for review by the study team and a final edit for an internal peer

review. This may be in the form of a formal report or a folder of analyticalsummaries, tables, and figures. The final assessment is approved by seniormanagement for use and distribution both within and outside of Ohio EPA. The assessment is used to support a number of DSW program obligations andincludes the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b report), TMDLs/303[d]listing, Water Quality Permit Support Documents (PSDs) in support ofNPDES permit reissuance, water quality standards (e.g., use designationrevisions), the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, remedial investigations ofhazardous waste sites, Natural Resource Damage Assessments, and otherprograms where surface water quality is of concern.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

86


for monitoring, planning the monitoring activities, conducting the monitoring, data custodyand analysis, data management and QA/QC, transformation of data into information,assessment and interpretation of the results, and the making of conclusions andrecommendations.

The process is coordinated by the Ecological Assessment Unit (EAU) and includes directparticipation from all DSW sections, and indirect participation by several other Ohio EPAdivisions and a selection of other State and federal agencies. A study team is assigned toeach watershed area and includes a study team coordinator, all members of the sampling teamfrom EAU, the District Water Quality Unit, the Water Quality Modeling Unit, Permits Unit,Enforcement Unit, Nonpoint Source Unit, Watersheds Unit, and, whenever applicable, theAgricultural Permitting Unit and 401 Unit. A written study plan which delineates the studyarea boundaries, the scope and objectives, specific sampling locations, indicators, parameters,frequencies, and index sampling periods is prepared for each study area. Followingmanagement review and approval, this then serves as the blueprint for the data collectionphase. Individual program units involved in the sampling are each responsible for assuringdata quality, integrity, and adherence to chain-of-custody procedures. Chemical laboratoryservices are provided by DES except where special needs can only be filled by a contractlaboratory. The annual sampling plan and individual plans of study are submitted to Region Vin fulfillment of coordination requirements and obligations.

Data collected via this process is validated in different ways, but in accordance with approvedQA/QC procedures. Biological data is collected, stored, and analyzed in accordance with thebiological criteria users manuals (Ohio EPA 1987 (Vol. II), 1989a (Vol. III). Habitatinformation is collected, stored, and analyzed in accordance with Ohio EPA (1989a) andRankin (1989). Data is validated by individual crew leaders and verified by lead workers andsupervisors. Data entry is to an in-house system (Ohio ECOS) and is proofed by the dataentry analyst and by the crew leader. Fish tissue data is collected via standardized procedures(Ohio EPA 1994b) and entered into an in-house system (Ohio ECOS). All chemical/physicaldata is collected, stored, and analyzed in accordance with Ohio EPA (1989b). Laboratoryresults are validated by DES prior to use by the Districts and Water Quality Modelling. Dataentry is initially to an in-house database (STORDES), proofread for accuracy, and batchuploaded to STORET at a later date.

Besides Ohio EPA, users of this data are numerous and include regulated entities, academicinstitutions, federal and stat agencies, private organizations, and the general public. Most

87


Ohio EPA data is transmitted to these users by direct request, particularly for the biologicaland habitat data which is not yet accessible via the Internet. Chemical/physical datauploaded to STORET is more broadly accessible through that system. All data must passQA/QC requirements prior to being released both within and outside of the agency.

Major programs supported by the Five-Year Basin Approach include reporting (305b, 303d,etc.), permitting (Permit Support Documents), planning, nonpoint source assessment andmanagement, water quality standards, and other areas (i.e., unregulated hazardous waste siteassessment). The data quality objectives for each program tend to be similar or the sameacross Ohio EPA programs, thus the potential for decision errors is somewhat the same. Because Ohio EPA consistently uses a multiple indicators approach to monitoring andassessment, the implications of decision errors to the resulting integrated assessment islessened than if individual indicators were being relied on alone.

Fixed Station NetworksThere are two monitoring networks maintained by DSW which qualify as fixed station; theNational Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (NAWQMN) and the RegionalReference Sites network. The NAWQMN network represents the traditional fixed stationdesign which dates to the 1950s. The network now consists of approximately 40 sites whichare sampled monthly for field, demand, nutrient, and selected heavy metals chemicalparameters. Macroinvertebrate sampling also takes place at these sites, but at a reducedfrequency of approximately once every three years. The Districts are responsible for thechemical/physical sampling and EAU is responsible for the macroinvertebrate sampling. Theprimary purpose of this network is to provide a long-term database for assessing changesthrough time. The analysis of trends takes place primarily when such sites are part of a five-year basin survey and the results are interpreted in that context. A portion of theNAWQMN network also overlaps with the International Joint Commission (IJC) on the greatlakes, addressing the data needs for assessing water quality conditions in Lake Erie and themajor tributaries. The NAWOMN network also overlaps with the U.S. Geological SurveyNational Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) which is also comprised of anetwork of gauging stations and a limited number of four parameter continuous monitors.

The Regional Reference Sites network consists of biological (fish and macroinvertebrates),habitat, chemical/physical water quality, and sediment chemical sampling. There areapproximately 450 sites located throughout the state with respect to ecoregion and streamsize. The purpose of this network is to define reference condition for biological, chemical,

88


and physical parameters and indicators. This in turn is used in the development of thebiological criteria, refined chemical assessment thresholds, and other assessment indicatorsand thresholds. EAU is primarily responsible for the design and implementation of thisnetwork.

Coordination With Non-Ohio EPA OrganizationsOhio EPA makes an attempt to coordinate monitoring and assessment activities with otherorganizations on a watershed-specific basis whenever possible. The most logical point ofcoordination is at the survey area selection and study planning steps. As these surveyslogically overlap with watershed activities, stakeholders are invited to participate in theplanning and, if appropriate, the sampling activities. The most success in supplementing datacollection activities thus far has been with the Ohio DNR, Division of Wildlife in adding fishsampling information. Cooperators must meet the minimum data quality objectivesemployed routinely by Ohio EPA.

Volunteer organizations are viewed as having the potential to contribute to the basinassessments, but thus far this has been minimal to non-existent. Ohio EPA, in cooperationwith Ohio DNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, has developed a data entry processfor volunteers collecting and submitting macroinvertebrate data based on the Stream QualityMonitoring protocol developed by the Scenic Rivers program. The Stream Quality Database(SQUAD) is available for use and it is expected to capture more of this type of data in thefuture. We also expect that this activity will increase as the watershed management processbecomes better organized. Data quality objectives for this type of bioassessment waspreviously addressed in a special study by Ohio EPA (1996a).

Chapter 4: Other Monitoring Networks and Activities in Ohio

In addition to some of the activities by non-Ohio EPA organizations described in Chapter 2,there are other organized monitoring and assessment efforts with which Ohio EPA hascooperated. While we are not attempting here to exhaustively capture all non-Ohio EPAactivities, the major programs are briefly highlighted.

4.1 U.S. Geological Survey!!NAWQA Program Placeholder for final version!!

4.2 Heidelberg Water Quality Laboratory

89


!!Placeholder for final version!!

4.3 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)!!Placeholder for final version!!

4.4 Scioto River Cooperative Network!!Placeholder for final version!!

4.5 County Soil and Water Conservation Districts!!Placeholder for final version!!

4.6 Watershed Stakeholder Groups!!Placeholder for final version!!

4.7 Volunteer Monitoring Organizations!!Placeholder for final version!!

Chapter 5: Monitoring Needs Assessment

Since the late 1980s, various needs assessments have been conducted for the Ohio EPAmonitoring and assessment program. With the initiation of the Five-Year Basin Approach in1990, an ongoing assessment of met and unmet needs has been undertaken and tracked. Thedefinition of an unmet need is one which is identified in the annual Five-Year Basin Approachneeds assessment, but which is not included in the final list of watershed surveys. Since 1990,this has approximated 40-50% each year (Figure 15). A basic assumption used indetermining unmet needs is the goal of meeting 100% of identified assessment needs withinthe five-year basin planning cycle. DSW established a goal of meeting 80% of the identifiedannual needs in 1993 as part of the commitment made to the Ohio Legislature as part of theSurface Water Protection Fund legislation, which enabled water programs to be partiallyfunded by NPDES permit fees. Table 9 outlines the annual commitments, goals, andshortfalls in terms of sites sampled and miles of rivers and streams assessed which are theoutput indicators used to report on DSW performance in this area.

While there is a shortfall in relation to assessing 100% of needs within a five-year cycle, DSWhas increased monitoring and assessment output significantly since the inception of the Five-Year Basin Approach in 1990 (Table 10). While some of the increases are due to the

90


Table 9. Summary of sites sampled and miles of rivers and streams assessed each year during 1992-1997as reported to the Ohio Legislature. The shortfall is based on the effort needed to meet 80% ofthe monitoring and assessment needs identified each year in the Five-Year Basin Approach needsassessment.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Category/Year Annual Needa Assessed Shortfallb_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sites Sampled1992 526 280 1411993 541 250 1831994 449 291 681995 662 305 2251996 661 325 3371997 794 369 4251998 672 402 207

Miles Assessed1992 1700 905 4551993 1680 780 5641994 1400 905 2151995 2400 1100 8201996 3000 1190 12101997c 2400 1190 7301998c 2400 1190 730

____________________________________________________________________________________a Based on 80% of annual need.b Shortfall is annual need less assessed sites/miles.c Estimates - actual data not yet available.

91


Table 10. Changes in Division of Surface Water monitoring and assessment performance in theFive-Year Basin Approach among selected sampling output categories between 1990 and1992, and 1992 and 1998.

______________________________________________________________________________

Monitoring & %Increase (+/-)Assessment Category 1990 1992 1998 1990/1992

______________________________________________________________________________

Fish AssemblageSites 244 381 617a +153/62%

MacroinvertebrateSites 185 207 464 +151/124%

Water ChemistrySites 171 251 342 +100/36%

Sediment ChemistrySites 59 101 181 +207/79%

Fish TissueSites 102 124b 190 +86/53%

Streams/RiversSampled 86 107 195 +127/82%

305b Miles Assessed -Total Milesc 971 1712 3023 +211/77%

305b Miles Assessed -New Milesc 355 515 615 +73/19%__________________________________________________________________a 1997 results used - reduced WYE effort in 1998 (475 sites in 1998; +95%/25%).b Year 1993 sites used - first year of new statewide program.c Total miles assessed in biennial 305b reporting period (even years).

92


addition of new staff with the passage of the permit fees in 1993 and 1994, themajority of the increases in output are due to efficiencies introduced into thesampling and data collection process. This has occurred by better utilizingsampling approaches which are scaled to the complexity of the setting and

assessmentquestions athand. Themajority ofthe increasesin output(Table 10) arelargely due tochanges madein samplecollectionprocedureswhich allowedmore sites tobe assessedwith the sameresources. For example,waterchemistryoutput wasimproved by

more appropriately scaling sampling frequencies to the assessment questions athand and increase in the number of sampling sites assessed through

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

FIVE-YEAR BASIN STATISTICS

SITES (NEED)SITES (ACTUAL)

NU

MB

ER

OF

SA

MP

LIN

G S

ITE

S

YEARFigure 15. Assessment of sites required to fulfill all assessment needs identified

by the planning process for each basin year 1990-1998 compared to sitesactually sampled.

time. In thebiological sampling output categories, more frequent use of qualitativemacroinvertebrate methods over the artificial substrates (3:1 relationship) and onepass fish sampling over 2-3 passes/site has been made (Figure 17), without greatcost to the integrity of the assessment. In other areas such as fish tissue, staffreassignments and adding this to the duties of fish crew leaders has allowed thesample collection to keep pace with previous levels. These latter changes were inresponse to FTE reductions made in fish and macroinvertebrate staffing in 1998and the loss of the full time fish tissue staff in 1997.

93

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

MILES ASSESSEDNEW MILES

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

MO

NIT

OR

ED

STR

EA

M &

RIV

ER

MIL

ES

TOTAL STREAM AND RIVER MILESASSESSED STATEWIDE BY 305B CYCLE

305B CYCLE YEAR

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

NU

MB

ER

/YE

AR

FIVE-YEAR BASIN SURVEY: STREAMS &RIVERS SAMPLED (1973-1998)

Figure 16. Number of rivers and streams assessed by Ohio EPA between 1973 and 1998 (upper)and monitored level assessments of stream and river miles reported in the Ohio Water ResourceInventory (305[b] report) between 1990 and 1998.

94


The net result has been an increase in the miles of rivers and streams assessed inthe 305(b) report (Table 10; Figure 16). Other developments that are currentlyunderway to improve monitoring and assessment output include the HeadwaterHabitat assessment methodology, the Nonpoint Source Stream Reach screeningtool, and the Geometric Site Selection process which was described in Chapter 3. Each of these should continue to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness ofthe Five-Year Basin Approach and continue progress towards the 80% assessmentgoal.

Impact of the 15 Year TMDL Development ScheduleAs the Five-Year Basin Approach expands to include support of the TMDLdevelopment process, the competition for monitoring and assessment resources hasincreased between programs. This is one of the principal reasons that theproportion of unmet needs has remained the same or increased since the mid-1990s, despite the significant increase in monitoring output. With the shift inpriorities in the Five-Year Basin Approach to the 15 year TMDL developmentschedule (see Chapter 2), the increased output has in effect been “spoken for”. Routine program support for NPDES permit reissuance will be affected wheneverthere is a lack of overlap with the TMDL development watersheds. An additionalbiological field crew and replacement of vacancies in the District Water QualityUnits is needed to keep Permit Support Document production at past levels(Figure 18). In addition, the integrity of the 305(b) database is at stake since thisis dependent on revisiting the major assessment and reassessment areas of the1980s and 1990s. Any diversion from the sequence of this core data andinformation base may bring an unintended bias to the 305(b) statistics and theintegrity of the forecast analysis and ranking of causes and sources.

There will also be benefits to the shift in the basin approach in support of TMDLs. The issue of small, unassessed and, in some cases undesignated streams, will greatlybenefit from this approach. This is an obvious prerequisite for TMDLdevelopment at the scale water quality management for these issues is and will betaking place. The TMDL design has altered the watershed assessment approachfrom a mainstem/major tributary approach where major issues and selected streamswere assessed to a stratified approach where all streams are assessed and watershedlevel tendencies in quality can be better ascertained. This latter issue is critical inbetter understanding and ranking associated causes and sources of impairment.

95

0

100

200

300

400

500

TOTAL H-D EQUIVALENTSQUAL. SAMPLES

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

NU

MBE

R O

F SA

MPL

ES

BASIN SURVEY MACROINVERTEBRATES:H-D EQUIVALENTS VS. QUALS. 1973-1998

0

1

2

3PASSES/SITE

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

NU

MBE

R O

F PA

SSES

BASIN SURVEYS FISH SAMPLING:PASSES/SITE (1973-1998)

Figure 17. Number of fish sampling passes/site and relationship of qualitative macroinvertebratesamples to artificial substrates (H-Ds) between 1973 and 1998.

96


0

10

20

30

40

50

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

NU

MB

ER

OF

RE

PO

RT

S

WQPSDs: 1990-1999

Figure 18. Production of Section 1 of Water Quality Permit SupportDocuments between 1990 and 1999 (last year is estimated based on basinsurvey coverage).

!!More detail and analysis to be added in final version!!

97

REFERENCES

Cooley, J.L. 1976. Nonpoint pollution and water quality monitoring. J. Soil WaterCons., March-April: 42-43.

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). 1992. Ambient water quality monitoring in the United States: first year review,evaluation, and recommendations. A report to the Office of Budget andManagement, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 26 pp. + appendices

ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1993. Ambient water quality monitoring in the United States: second year review,evaluation, and recommendations. Interagency Advisory Committee onWater Data, Washington, D.C. + Appendices.

ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1995. Thestrategy for improving water-quality monitoring in the United States. Finalreport of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality.Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Washington, D.C. +Appendices.

Kopec, J. and Lewis, S. 1983. Stream quality monitoring, Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Scenic RiversProgram, Columbus, Ohio, 20 pp.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1997a. Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor. Lake Erie LaMPTechnical Report No. 3.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1997b. Degradation of Aesthetics. Lake Erie LaMP TechnicalReport No. 15.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1997c. Restrictions on Dredging Activities. Lake Erie LaMPTechnical Report No. 9.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1997d. Drinking Water Consumption Restrictions or Taste andOdor Problems. Lake Erie LaMP Technical Report No. 11.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1998a. Degradation of Phytoplaknton and ZooplanktonPopulations. Lake Erie LaMP Technical Report No. 13.

Lake Erie LaMP. 1998b. Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption . LakeErie LaMP Technical Report No. 2.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological critieria for theprotection of aquatic life: volume II: users manual for biological fieldassessment of Ohio surface waters. Division of Water Quality Planning andAssessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Biological critieria for theprotection of aquatic life: volume III: standardized biological field samplingand laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebratecommunities. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment,Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Manual of surveillance methodsand quality assurance practices. 6th Update. Division of EnvironmentalServices, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Ecological recovery endpoints forOhio Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Ecological recoveryendpoints for streams affected by the Meigs #31 mine discharges during July- September 1993. Ohio EPA Tech. Rep. EAS/1994-1-1. Division of SurfaceWater, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. 41 pp.

Ohio EPA. 1994b. State of Ohio cooperative fish tissue monitoring programguidance manual. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1994-11-1. 11 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. The Ohio EPA bioassessmentcomparability project: a preliminary analysis. Ohio EPA Tech. Bull.MAS/1996-12-4. Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and AssessmentSection, Columbus, Ohio. 26 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Background on the Ohio EPAstrategic plan. 1996 Ohio EPA Strategic Management Plan, Ohio EPA,Columbus, OH. 89 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. Using biological criteria tovalidate applications of water quality criteria: dissolved and total recoverablemetals. Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. MAS/1997-12-4, Division of Surface Water,Columbus, Ohio. 78 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b. Ohio water resource inventory,executive summary: summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Rankin,E.T., Yoder, C.O., and Mishne, D.A. (eds.), Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. MAS/1996-10-3, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. 78 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Ohio EPA Five Year MonitoringSurface Water Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, 2000-2004. Ohio EPATech. Bull. MAS/1999-7-2. Division of Surface Water, Monitoring andAssessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Plafkin, J. L. and others. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in rivers andstreams: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. EPA.Washington, D.C.

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (qhei): rationale,methods, and application. Division of Water Quality Planning andAssessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Terrell, C.R. and P.B. Perfetti. 1990. Water quality indicators guide: surfacewaters. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, SCS TP 183.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. U.S. EPA Region V watermonitoring strategy. Environmental Monitoring Branch, Water Divsion,Chicago, IL. 44 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Monitoring strategy. Monitoringand Data Support Div., Office of Water, Washington, DC. (not paged).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Section 106 and 604[b] grantguidance - water monitoring. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Assessment andWatershed Protection Division, Washington, DC. 9 pp. + app.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. Environmental indicators of waterquality in the United States. EPA 841-R-96-002. Office of Water,Washington, DC 20460. 25 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. A conceptual framework to supportdevelopment and use of environmental information in decision-making. EPA 239-R-95-012. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington,

DC 20460. 43 pp.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development andimplementation in Ohio, pp. 109-144. in W. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning andDecision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Yoder, C.O. 1997. Important concepts and elements of an adequate Statewatershed monitoring and assessment program. Prepared for U.S. EPA ,Office of Water (Coop. Agreement CX825484-01-0) and ASIWPCA,Standards and Monitoring. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water,Columbus, OH. 38 pp.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1998. The role of biological indicators in a statewater quality management process. J. Env. Mon. Assess. 51(1-2): 61-88.

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times